# WHS working well for me



## jim8flog (Jun 17, 2021)

Having played in plenty of comps and a few Social cards the best 8 in my scores are all scores recorded since coming out of lockdown this year.

Nice to see it reflecting currently ability.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jun 17, 2021)

I'm fairly similar, 7 of my 8 from this year. Next 6 rounds are non counting so hoping to make more inroads into getting back to where I want to be.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jun 17, 2021)

It's working well for me too.  I got my first three cards in just before the last lockdown and since the reopening a few months go, am slowly building up my rounds with a combination of general play 9 hole and 18 hole rounds, and getting started in comps.  6 rounds in at the moment, so my lowest two are averaged with a further -1 adjustment.

Off that I've played a matchplay comp where I was given 12 shots; I won it on the first playoff hole so it was a tight game.   I played a Stableford comp (95%) and got 28 points - slap bang in the middle of the field of about 50 players on a day the weather conditions were benign the rough was up, and I wasn't at my best. I've played informally a few times off my course handicap and got 30-34 points.  I have had three friendly matchplay rounds - win 2&1 in one over 9 holes where i was given about a shot per hole, 3&2 in the other where I got about 12 shots, and lost one 2&1 where I got about 17 shots.  So it seems pretty fair in that it is making for competitive matches and leaving me with average results as I am not playing loads better, or loads worse than it.

Ahead of my next matchplay comp round I'm going to put my 7th round in.  If I play badly the worst that can happen is my Index will go up 1 as I will lose the -1 adjustment, my current third lowest will come into the averaging, and the round I play won't count towards the average, and it won't give me more shots for the forthcoming match.  If I play well, index could come down and I'll get fewer shots; that's what I'm hoping for even if it means the match is harder to win!


----------



## louise_a (Jun 17, 2021)

Although my index has gone up and is liable to go up even more over the next 4 or 5 rounds I do think it is working well as it is reflecting how I am scoring


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 17, 2021)

My most recent 'top 8' score is from September 2020. That was the 5th one of 5 in a row that are all counting, so I must have been on form then I guess. My oldest counting score is from September 2019. That's going off in two rounds time. It's also the second best score unfortunately.


----------



## HampshireHog (Jun 17, 2021)

Played 5 comps had small 3 drops 0.9 in total.  Under the old system I’d have had a 0.2 cut, 2 buffers and 2 0.1s.
Definitely, working for me.


----------



## Fabia999 (Jun 17, 2021)

6/8 of mine are since April with one being yesterday. Hoping that I can drop 1 or 2 shots by the end of the year.


----------



## nickjdavis (Jun 17, 2021)

gonna lose 4 of my best 8 in the next 6 rounds....current form indicates that I might replace these four with one score that is better than any of them and three that are worse.


----------



## Imurg (Jun 17, 2021)

Losing 7 or my 8 in the next 9 rounds...
Current firm suggests I may be testing the hard cap...


----------



## Bdill93 (Jun 17, 2021)

17 scores in the system now - 6 cards now being averaged to calculate my handicap.

Currently sat at 18.4. Im commonly breaking 30 points every time I play, had 22 over 9 holes last night but I havent submitted that. 

Oldest handicap card is from December 2020 - also my lowest! The rest are all from the last 2/3 weeks so I'm in a good patch right now. A couple low 80's and I'll be around where id like to be by the end of the year - then I just have to remain there


----------



## jim8flog (Jun 17, 2021)

louise_a said:



			Although my index has gone up and is liable to go up even more over the next 4 or 5 rounds I do think it is working well as it is reflecting how I am scoring
		
Click to expand...

My main point is that my H.I was reflecting how I once played. I reached the soft cap this year. It now reflects pretty much how I have played during the past year with particular emphasis on current ability. Looks like I am now in a period of relative stability handicap wise and the only way is lower for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Jigger (Jun 17, 2021)

It’ll hopefully be the death of the bandit to a certain extent as their HI will follow them rather than putting 3 cards in again at a new club. 

I’ve also noticed there’s fewer runaway winners at our club.


----------



## rosecott (Jun 17, 2021)

I have played 40 "qualifiers" since the end of lockdown and my HI today is 0.1 lower than that first game after lockdown. Confirms that the more scores you put in, the more accurate the HI.


----------



## Green Bay Hacker (Jun 17, 2021)

WHS is still a work in progress for some. We have one member who did not have any qualifying cards last year due to covid. He started this year at 8 and drifted up to 13. Last Saturday he shot a net 59 and came down to 3.6. His true current handicap will not be shown until he has the 20 qualifying scores in.


----------



## Val (Jun 17, 2021)

I'm seeing less complaints about the system now than at the start of the season which would indicate people are now more used to how its working. I think it's straight forward and more about form than ability than the old system, and rightly so.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 17, 2021)

Jigger said:



			It’ll hopefully be the death of the bandit to a certain extent as their HI will follow them rather than putting 3 cards in again at a new club.
		
Click to expand...

It was supposed to work in the same way under CONGU as it does under WHS. Sloppy h'cap sec or club management.


----------



## chrisd (Jun 17, 2021)

I've posted a number of times that I'm shooting up in handicap but I dont dislike the system.  I've struggled  a bit since the last lock down ended and my scores show that. I've gone from 14 handicap the day before WHS to 16.9 today,  but factor in the slope adjustment I'm now off 19 on white tees. I fear some decent, low handicapper with a great score is going to suffer me shooting a sub 80 round and winning a competition with an obscene nett score soon!


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 17, 2021)

My 18th card goes in the system today .. which will lower my handicap again 

The system is working well for me 

I love the EG app and use it constantly even at my home course because the handicap sec at my home course says if we don't hand in cards after using IG he will delete the rounds so to save the faff of cards we just use EG as it signs and some how it bypasses his reach lol perfect 

18th card today. 18 hole comp, return to the whites for first time for a while due to covid. Injured my back but played very well .. 34 points let's see what that achieves


----------



## jim8flog (Jun 17, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			My 18th card goes in the system today .. which will lower my handicap again

The system is working well for me

I love the EG app and use it constantly even at my home course because the handicap sec at my home course says if we don't hand in cards after using IG he will delete the rounds so to save the faff of cards we just use EG as it signs and some how it bypasses his reach lol perfect

18th card today. 18 hole comp, return to the whites for first time for a while due to covid. Injured my back but played very well .. 34 points let's see what that achieves
		
Click to expand...

 I was just about to use the EG app yesterday when I remembered that neither of the guys I was playing with have it. One them also wanted to put in a card so it was an opportunity to go through the IG/PSI system with him. It was also an opportunity to explain why it was not necessary for me to hit a provisional ball or bother about a lost ball on 2 holes and go back to the tee to hit another one. He had thought that all rounds had to be medal and holed out on every hole.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 17, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			I love the EG app and use it constantly even at my home course because the handicap sec at my home course says if we don't hand in cards after using IG he will delete the rounds
		
Click to expand...

Your score should still be counted for handicap purposes. WHS Interpretation 2.1b/1


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 17, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Your score should still be counted for handicap purposes. WHS Interpretation 2.1b/1
		
Click to expand...

I don't think he has read much of it by the rubbish he puts out


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 17, 2021)

rulefan said:



			It was supposed to work in the same way under CONGU as it does under WHS. Sloppy h'cap sec or club management.
		
Click to expand...

Not really fair with new members suggesting they never had a CDH or “haven’t played for years”.


----------



## badgergm (Jun 17, 2021)

Jigger said:



			It’ll hopefully be the death of the bandit to a certain extent as their HI will follow them rather than putting 3 cards in again at a new club.

I’ve also noticed there’s fewer runaway winners at our club.
		
Click to expand...

Wish we could say the same. Absurdity this week of a 48 point winner coming down from 20 to 11. Beyond me why people with so few rounds are given a handicap capable of playing in a competition.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 17, 2021)

badgergm said:



			Wish we could say the same. Absurdity this week of a 48 point winner coming down from 20 to 11. Beyond me why people with so few rounds are given a handicap capable of playing in a competition.
		
Click to expand...

At what stage do you think a new player should be allowed to enter a comp.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 17, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			At what stage do you think a new player should be allowed to enter a comp.
		
Click to expand...

After they have all 20 cards so you see their true average as in 20 rounds you would get a full reflection of ability 

The old 3 card system could be first 3 rounds you have swung a club then easily improve on that with practice


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 17, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			After they have all 20 cards so you see their true average as in 20 rounds you would get a full reflection of ability

The old 3 card system could be first 3 rounds you have swung a club then easily improve on that with practice
		
Click to expand...

There are guys on here who wouldn’t play 20 qualifiers in a year yet you think that a new member can’t join in until they have completed 20 cards.  I’m not sure how long they would hang around for.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 17, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			There are guys on here who wouldn’t play 20 qualifiers in a year yet you think that a new member can’t join in until they have completed 20 cards.  I’m not sure how long they would hang around for.
		
Click to expand...

Now the app is there 20 rounds is easy


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 17, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Now the app is there 20 rounds is easy
		
Click to expand...

I’m not sure if you are involved in the workings of your club but it will never catch on. I presume you were able to enter comps once you had a handicap yet your not keen on others having the same opportunity.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 17, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Now the app is there 20 rounds is easy
		
Click to expand...

The other flaw is you assume everyone has the app. We have members who don’t even have a computer.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 17, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			The other flaw is you assume everyone has the app. We have members who don’t even have a computer.
		
Click to expand...

They can enter cards. Same thing no?


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 17, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			They can enter cards. Same thing no?
		
Click to expand...

So how many cards did you put in to be able to play in a comp.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			I’m not sure if you are involved in the workings of your club but it will never catch on. I presume you were able to enter comps once you had a handicap yet your not keen on others having the same opportunity.
		
Click to expand...

I can just imagine the reaction - it’s a nightmare as it when people are complaining about having to get three cards in etc 

All those new golfers or return to golf being told they must have 20 cards in before playing 

Also there a still a lot more people who aren’t putting a scorecard in every time they play


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 17, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			So how many cards did you put in to be able to play in a comp.
		
Click to expand...

I joined under the old system so was allowed to play however now the new system is in I really don't care about comps. I used to enter as was the best way to get cut. That's it. Golf is about scoring your best score and getting cut to low as possible (whilst having fun) it's not about winning.. now the app is here we put in every single round we play as a group as it gives us a good reflection of how we are performing.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 17, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			I joined under the old system so was allowed to play however now the new system is in I really don't care about comps. I used to enter as was the best way to get cut. That's it. Golf is about scoring your best score and getting cut to low as possible (whilst having fun) it's not about winning.. now the app is here we put in every single round we play as a group as it gives us a good reflection of how we are performing.
		
Click to expand...

Funny how people look at things differently. Our comps are about meeting other club members and having a good social time, not about winning. Possibly the drawing of most of our comps adds to this.

Winning, unless it’s the club champs is a side line.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jun 17, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Funny how people look at things differently. Our comps are about meeting other club members and having a good social time, not about winning. Possibly the drawing of most of our comps adds to this.

Winning, unless it’s the club champs is a side line.
		
Click to expand...

I guess that’s prob one of the difference between a members clubs and a proprietary club - our clubs are all very social , lots of side bets between groups and a great presentation night especially with the historic board comps - newer proprietary clubs don’t have that history to follow on


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 17, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Funny how people look at things differently. Our comps are about meeting other club members and having a good social time, not about winning. Possibly the drawing of most of our comps adds to this.

Winning, unless it’s the club champs is a side line.
		
Click to expand...

Which is fine, meet new people. But I've always been of the opinion that people can enter the comps but be excluded from prizes until their handicap is verified 

We used to have people turn up at society's off 24 and we never let them win until they had been least 3 times so we actually got a reflection of their ability.

No reason people can't enter comps with a block on prizes until maybe not 20 rounds if that's too hard but 3 rounds in the comps if their putting in 45 points a time their handicap is far to high .. if their pulling a 30 35 34 you know their not riding a horse home


----------



## badgergm (Jun 17, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			At what stage do you think a new player should be allowed to enter a comp.
		
Click to expand...

A minimum of 8, say. No reason why they can’t play any time, including comp days, just with their card only counting for handicap purposes. Take maybe a month. Doesn’t seem at all  unreasonable to me. And much fairer on the other 100 people in the competition.


----------



## sweaty sock (Jun 18, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Funny how people look at things differently. Our comps are about meeting other club members and having a good social time, not about winning. Possibly the drawing of most of our comps adds to this.

Winning, unless it’s the club champs is a side line.
		
Click to expand...

I agree whole heartedly with this, just cant get angry at a good score, in a no name competition, at a no name club, played every week, with handicaps.  Its absurd.  

Statistically, the number of people on a more or less level playing field due to one handicap system is phenomenal, to complain about the odd outlier winning £25 on a saturday shows just how near perfect the system is.


----------



## badgergm (Jun 18, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			So how many cards did you put in to be able to play in a comp.
		
Click to expand...

But this is a poor argument. We’ve just changed the whole system. It should have been improved in this respect, but hasn’t. What’s wrong with putting in 8 cards? I really don’t think that most new players would object to that, or put them off. 
And it would reduce the absurdities that I’ve given above, where someone has manifestly been playing off a wrong handicap.


----------



## Whereditgo (Jun 18, 2021)

My next 5 scores to be replaced are all counting scores, so looks like with a run of poor form my HI is likely to jump up over the next couple of weeks.....just in time to meet up with @Smiffy and @JustOne


----------



## IanM (Jun 18, 2021)

A decent Change Manager would have spotted the cultural aspects of the new system and focused the communications on these.  I am still laughing at the video about the world wide uniform system that will encourage more people to play golf.     Classic cock up. Don't get me wrong, I love it, it's this lack of savvy/arrogance that has kept me in work for the past 20 years.  

If you forget about trying to work it all out and just play golf.... you'll get used to the idea it reflects what you have scored, not what you think you are capable of on your best day.  That's a big change in mindset. 

It's far from perfect.  In the long run it will do ok.


----------



## rosecott (Jun 18, 2021)

badgergm said:



			Wish we could say the same. Absurdity this week of a 48 point winner coming down from 20 to 11. Beyond me why people with so few rounds are given a handicap capable of playing in a competition.
		
Click to expand...

That sounds to me that he has very few scores on his record and that 48 points round became the round that determined his HI as he was building up to 20 scores. I would have been re-visiting his playing/handicap history.

48 points is not necessarily absurd. Our Tuesday competition this week was won with 45 points by a player with 138 scores on his record. He did manage to have 2 blobs including one on a par 3 on which he would normally score a couple of points in most rounds.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 18, 2021)

badgergm said:



			A minimum of 8, say. No reason why they can’t play any time, including comp days, just with their card only counting for handicap purposes. Take maybe a month. Doesn’t seem at all  unreasonable to me. And much fairer on the other 100 people in the competition.
		
Click to expand...

As you feel its reasonable there is nothing to stop you asking your comp committee to adopt your idea as a term of entry.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 18, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			As you feel its reasonable there is nothing to stop you asking your comp committee to adopt your idea as a term of entry.
		
Click to expand...

Why is it , especially in golf , that any kind of change is seemed as bad and people would rather stick with a system and have issues they moan about than actually move with times 

Not just this issue just lots of little bits


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 18, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Why is it , especially in golf , that any kind of change is seemed as bad and people would rather stick with a system and have issues they moan about than actually move with times

Not just this issue just lots of little bits
		
Click to expand...

So have you asked your club to adopt your idea?

I have no problem with change, we as a club have adopted it, you are the one that doesn’t appear to be happy with the current changes.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 18, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			So have you asked your club to adopt your idea?

I have no problem with change, we as a club have adopted it, you are the one that doesn’t appear to be happy with the current changes.
		
Click to expand...

Where have I said that? I like whs I think for those with a history it's fantastic idea and once bedded in will be an useful tool 

However still just 3 cards for first handicap? Seems odd when it's best 8 of 20

Like others have said 8 cards wouldn't be that bad an idea


----------



## jim8flog (Jun 18, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			After they have all 20 cards so you see their true average as in 20 rounds you would get a full reflection of ability
		
Click to expand...

 From memory ( I no longer have access) prior to the WHS starting that would have precluded around half of our members from playing comps.

You only need about 16 to show a reasonably accurate reflection of ability.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 18, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Where have I said that? I like whs I think for those with a history it's fantastic idea and once bedded in will be an useful tool

However still just 3 cards for first handicap? Seems odd when it's best 8 of 20

Like others have said 8 cards wouldn't be that bad an idea
		
Click to expand...

As HC Sec I can only follow the rules of the WHS although as I posted there is nothing to stop you (or any club) asking the club to adopt it in their conditions of entry.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 18, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Where have I said that? I like whs I think for those with a history it's fantastic idea and once bedded in will be an useful tool

However still just 3 cards for first handicap? Seems odd when it's best 8 of 20

Like others have said 8 cards wouldn't be that bad an idea
		
Click to expand...

With only 8 cards they would get the average of the lowest 2.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 18, 2021)

rulefan said:



			With only 8 cards they would get the average of the lowest 2.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. However would be a better reflection


----------



## Jigger (Jun 18, 2021)

badgergm said:



			Wish we could say the same. Absurdity this week of a 48 point winner coming down from 20 to 11. Beyond me why people with so few rounds are given a handicap capable of playing in a competition.
		
Click to expand...

always been the same but at least they’ll struggle to get back up to 20 now.


----------



## Crazyface (Jun 19, 2021)

Seniors comp this week. The winner had a net 60 and won by 4 shots. It seems the players with not many counting scores have now got much higher handicaps than before.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 19, 2021)

Crazyface said:



			Seniors comp this week. The winner had a net 60 and won by 4 shots. It seems the players with not many counting scores have now got much higher handicaps than before.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like your handicap committee haven't been doing their job.


----------



## IanM (Jun 19, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Why is it , especially in golf , that any kind of change is seemed as bad and people would rather stick with a system and have issues they moan about than actually move with times

Not just this issue just lots of little bits
		
Click to expand...

Change is hard and change done well is very hard.   Google "why change fails" you'll get millions of lines.  Most answers will mention "people" rather than time and resources. 

Communication is not change management,  but effective change management requires lots of communication. 

I'd love to know who advised golf authorities about this.   My guess is no one did.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 19, 2021)

IanM said:



			Change is hard and change done well is very hard.   Google "why change fails" you'll get millions of lines.  Most answers will mention "people" rather than time and resources.

Communication is not change management,  but effective change management requires lots of communication.

I'd love to know who advised golf authorities about this.   My guess is no one did.
		
Click to expand...

I personally like it. However I listened to Rick shiels postcast and the lady who was head of the change was on there and gave a good understanding

Guess it's down to a what people read up on and b the information from handicap secs 

Ours is terrible. I mean the comp this week was Thursday and we still don't know the results / round not entered into whs which has to be done by midnight no?


----------



## IanM (Jun 19, 2021)

Can you link that podcast?  Be very interested to hear what she said.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 19, 2021)

IanM said:



			Can you link that podcast?  Be very interested to hear what she said.
		
Click to expand...

https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aH...QucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC00NjE1MTg0?ep=14
Never linked a podcast so hope that worked 

If it didn't it's ep 31 of his podcast


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jun 19, 2021)

IanM said:



			A decent Change Manager would have spotted the cultural aspects of the new system and focused the communications on these.  I am still laughing at the video about the world wide uniform system that will encourage more people to play golf.     Classic cock up. Don't get me wrong, I love it, it's this lack of savvy/arrogance that has kept me in work for the past 20 years. 

If you forget about trying to work it all out and just play golf.... you'll get used to the idea it reflects what you have scored, not what you think you are capable of on your best day.  That's a big change in mindset.

It's far from perfect.  In the long run it will do ok.
		
Click to expand...

I never had a handicap under the old system so am not embedded in years of doing it the old way. But the current way seems to be working for me and my club. Those struggling are people who are used to the old way. 

One rainy Saturday I took the time to read up loads of the published info about how it all works. I found that very helpful, but I am a numbers person and like detail. 

Not sure that one system is inherently better than another; they are just different.


----------



## BiMGuy (Jun 19, 2021)

IanM said:



			Change is hard and change done well is very hard.   Google "why change fails" you'll get millions of lines.  Most answers will mention "people" rather than time and resources.

Communication is not change management,  but effective change management requires lots of communication.

I'd love to know who advised golf authorities about this.   My guess is no one did.
		
Click to expand...

Change management is 100% people management. 

If I had £5  for every time someone has told me "but that's not the way we used to do it" I would be very rich.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jun 19, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Why is it , especially in golf , that any kind of change is seemed as bad and people would rather stick with a system and have issues they moan about than actually move with times

Not just this issue just lots of little bits
		
Click to expand...

Many of us like routine. And it is disruptive when routines are forced to change because we feel we are losing control. 

Some people of course love change and new things, and are great at looking forward to new opportunities and new schemes to get started. 

My suspicion is that golf clubs members will tend to the former rather than the latter.


----------



## patricks148 (Jun 19, 2021)

7 of my best 8 are now from this year, a new low for me after Fridays seniors at Tain of 3.1, but in reality I'm not a 3 handicap by any stretch of the imagination,  under the old system id still be of 5, maybe 4 ish.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 19, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			7 of my best 8 are now from this year, a new low for me after Fridays seniors at Tain of 3.1, but in reality I'm not a 3 handicap by any stretch of the imagination,  under the old system id still be of 5, maybe 4 ish.
		
Click to expand...

is that a 3 index tho giving you a course handicap of 5 ish?


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 19, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			Many of us like routine. And it is disruptive when routines are forced to change because we feel we are losing control.

Some people of course love change and new things, and are great at looking forward to new opportunities and new schemes to get started.

My suspicion is that golf clubs members will tend to the former rather than the latter.
		
Click to expand...

ironically golfers are most likely to not be in control. especally of their ball


----------



## rosecott (Jun 19, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			I personally like it. However I listened to Rick shiels postcast and the lady who was head of the change was on there and gave a good understanding

Guess it's down to a what people read up on and b the information from handicap secs

Ours is terrible. I mean the comp this week was Thursday and we still don't know the results / round not entered into whs which has to be done by midnight no?
		
Click to expand...

You have no idea why the comp was not closed and have nevertheless condemned your Handicap Secretary. We had an evening "qualifier" on Wednesday. I was unable to finalise the competition on Wednesday. One player registered 30 points for the 9 holes which clearly had to be questioned and, as most people would have guessed he had entered Stableford points instead of gross scores. Another player, when contacted, was adamant that he had entered his scores online - the software showed next day that his score was entered at 9.26 on the day after the comp.

In my experience, that kind of thing is a regular occurrence. I don't know about other ISVs but Handicapmaster had already uploaded all the rest of the scores to WHS immediately after they were posted online. All the scores, including a corrected score for the 30 points claimant, were therefore in WHS long before midnight but the comp result could not be finalised until the next day.

Don't lose sight of the reality that Handicap Secretaries are pretty well all volunteers, have to deal with such situations, and do have a life outside of golf.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 19, 2021)

rosecott said:



			You have no idea why the comp was not closed and have nevertheless condemned your Handicap Secretary. We had an evening "qualifier" on Wednesday. I was unable to finalise the competition on Wednesday. One player registered 30 points for the 9 holes which clearly had to be questioned and, as most people would have guessed he had entered Stableford points instead of gross scores. Another player, when contacted, was adamant that he had entered his scores online - the software showed next day that his score was entered at 9.26 on the day after the comp.

In my experience, that kind of thing is a regular occurrence. I don't know about other ISVs but Handicapmaster had already uploaded all the rest of the scores to WHS immediately after they were posted online. All the scores, including a corrected score for the 30 points claimant, were therefore in WHS long before midnight but the comp result could not be finalised until the next day.

Don't lose sight of the reality that Handicap Secretaries are pretty well all volunteers, have to deal with such situations, and do have a life outside of golf.
		
Click to expand...

Thing is this isn't the first thing with the handicap sec

He doesn't have a clue about whs . The info he sends out is incorrect.. didn't tell people what to put on the card handicap wise.. even tho clear advice says course handicap .. he is putting out put playing handicap ..

We can now do cards via ig but he insists on the cards being handed it anyways even tho that defeats the objective of modernization

Our group sticks to using eg and doesn't bother with him anymore as you wait and wait then incorrect information

The general manager said from 17th may white tees back open all comps from the whites

On 10th June handicap sec emails out we looking to open white tees.. no mention of when.. so no idea if we played off the correct white tees or not

We have app features he doesn't use which would keep the majority of members informed

He has posted out comp results with the incorrect winner a few times then had to correct

So yes..he is useless


Oh and my fav. Doesn't agree with the course rating thinks it's too low .. so is emailing out to members that it's wrong and it will be challenged


----------



## rulefan (Jun 19, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Oh and my fav. Doesn't agree with the course rating thinks it's too low .. so is emailing out to members that it's wrong and it will be challenged
		
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see his rating report vs the rating team's report. Out of interest, what is the length and current rating?


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 19, 2021)

rulefan said:



			It would be interesting to see his rating report vs the rating team's report. Out of interest, what is the length and current rating?
		
Click to expand...

Slope or course?

Slope whites 121 yellows 117

Course rating 74.2 yellow 71.8

Distance white 7122 yellow 6633

His talks about rating is all about slope 

The massive miss understanding that slope is difficulty

I've emailed him about it a few times but he still continues that we were rated wrong


----------



## rulefan (Jun 19, 2021)

Even allowing for many tricky objects on the course (bunkers, penalty areas, high stimp greens etc) 74.2 is at the top end for the whites. 71.8 is not at all low for the yellows.
Good luck with his challenge


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 19, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Even allowing for many tricky objects on the course (bunkers, penalty areas, high stimp greens etc) 74.2 is at the top end for the whites. 71.8 is not at all low for the yellows.
Good luck with his challenge 

Click to expand...

Well he insists the slope is too low even tho it's only low because we punish stratch and bogey golfers the same .. isn't it the difference between anyways?


----------



## patricks148 (Jun 19, 2021)

no index of 3 playing 3, for some reason at ours  once you are below 5 index and playing handicap are the same[/QUOTE]


----------



## jim8flog (Jun 19, 2021)

I presume your slope is somewhere around the mid 120s then.

Vey similar where I play. At 10.7 I only go up (effectively) by 1


----------



## patricks148 (Jun 19, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			I presume your slope is somewhere around the mid 120s then.

Vey similar where I play. At 10.7 I only go up (effectively) by 1
		
Click to expand...

Once you are above 5 you start getting extra shots , but the higher you get the more shots it looks like you get,. The slope is 134. I can only assume they think its easier or lower handicaps, which it is if you are long, but I'm not and the new layout is effectively 3 shots harder for me now than the old layout, the 3 par 5s i have to lay up on the young guys blast it over, used to be able to at least try and get on in two


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jun 19, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			7 of my best 8 are now from this year, a new low for me after Fridays seniors at Tain of 3.1, but in reality I'm not a 3 handicap by any stretch of the imagination,  under the old system id still be of 5, maybe 4 ish.
		
Click to expand...

I'm in exactly the same situation as you with 7 out of 8 and going to be down to borderline of CH of 3 after this morning. Never got close to 3 under old system, always between 4 and 5.

In a better place than the start of the season when I had a CH of 7


----------



## rulefan (Jun 19, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			no index of 3 playing 3, for some reason at ours  once you are below 5 index and playing handicap are the same
		
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
The Slope would have to be pretty low to not have a variance (unless there is a difference between the CR and Par in Scotland). As you are in Scotland that is likely to be the reason.

CH = HI x (Slope/113) {_Scotland_} + (CR - Par)


----------



## badgergm (Jun 20, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			As you feel its reasonable there is nothing to stop you asking your comp committee to adopt your idea as a term of entry.
		
Click to expand...

True, but even if I did, and it was accepted, it wouldn’t solve the problem. The person could be playing in opens, or be playing in inter club matches, etc.
The point is that the system should not allow it.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jun 20, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Yes. However would be a better reflection
		
Click to expand...

With three cards it is already the lowest that counts, after adjustment down for any blow-out holes, with a further -2 adjustment. So it’s already 2 shots lower than the adjusted best of your three cards. Doesn’t seem excessively generous to me. 

The principle of the new system is to make the game more accessible. Asking for more cards to get started makes it less accessible. 

If clubs are bothered about this kind of thing maybe they could put limits on some comps. But clubs can’t want more members, more people playing the game, and in the same breath, make it harder for people to get started.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 20, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			With three cards it is already the lowest that counts, after adjustment down for any blow-out holes, with a further -2 adjustment. So it’s already 2 shots lower than the adjusted best of your three cards. Doesn’t seem excessively generous to me. 

The principle of the new system is to make the game more accessible. Asking for more cards to get started makes it less accessible. 

If clubs are bothered about this kind of thing maybe they could put limits on some comps. But clubs can’t want more members, more people playing the game, and in the same breath, make it harder for people to get started.
		
Click to expand...

With handicaps becoming easier to get after July (golf England nomad handicap) almost anyone can sign a card now

So getting more cards in wouldn't be that much of an ask


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jun 20, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			With handicaps becoming easier to get after July (golf England nomad handicap) almost anyone can sign a card now

So getting more cards in wouldn't be that much of an ask
		
Click to expand...

Everyone’s circumstances are different. For some you are right but for others, who perhaps don’t play quite as often, some who are learning so don’t want to register every round as they will be being coached round and trying new things, and perhaps some who are finding it a bit harder to meet people to sign a card for them (especially with reduction of roll-ups) 8 rounds could take a while.

Would 8 rounds make a difference?  I’ve just played my 7th. My index after 7 is actually 2.3 higher than it was after 3, as I’ve not got any substantially better rounds in after my 3, and lost the -2 adjustment.

It’s a good discussion and the points you are making are interesting. From my end of (in)experience, I think the system is pretty good and I can’t see the increased number of cards requirement before being allowed to compete making much difference.


----------



## badgergm (Jun 20, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			With three cards it is already the lowest that counts, after adjustment down for any blow-out holes, with a further -2 adjustment. So it’s already 2 shots lower than the adjusted best of your three cards. Doesn’t seem excessively generous to me.

The principle of the new system is to make the game more accessible. Asking for more cards to get started makes it less accessible.

If clubs are bothered about this kind of thing maybe they could put limits on some comps. But clubs can’t want more members, more people playing the game, and in the same breath, make it harder for people to get started.
		
Click to expand...

The difference in accessibility is very marginal IMO. I don’t believe that most new starters to the game expect to have a handicap that is equally valid to experienced golfers after just thee cards.
And that marginal benefit is not worth it when compared with the disadvantages of increasing the number of occurrences where competitors have manifestly incorrect handicaps, thus rendering the competition unfair for experienced golfers.


----------



## badgergm (Jun 20, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			Everyone’s circumstances are different. For some you are right but for others, who perhaps don’t play quite as often, some who are learning so don’t want to register every round as they will be being coached round and trying new things, and perhaps some who are finding it a bit harder to meet people to sign a card for them (especially with reduction of roll-ups) 8 rounds could take a while.

Would 8 rounds make a difference?  I’ve just played my 7th. My index after 7 is actually 2.3 higher than it was after 3, as I’ve not got any substantially better rounds in after my 3, and lost the -2 adjustment.

It’s a good discussion and the points you are making are interesting. From my end of (in)experience, I think the system is pretty good and I can’t see the increased number of cards requirement before being allowed to compete making much difference.
		
Click to expand...

With respect to finding it hard to get people to sign a card - but such people should be able to play alongside competitors, and get a card in that way. Just that they can’t win competitions until they have a handicap worthy of the name. reasonable and inclusive IMO.


----------



## Old Skier (Jun 20, 2021)

badgergm said:



			True, but even if I did, and it was accepted, it wouldn’t solve the problem. The person could be playing in opens, or be playing in inter club matches, etc.
The point is that the system should not allow it.
		
Click to expand...

Clubs do have tools at there disposal to sort some of these problems which we use. We use divisions and for team comps as the majority of our comps are drawn we use the balanced draw facilties. All the issues you raise can be addressed easily by a proactive comps committee without the need to stop anyone entering a comp.


----------



## Whereditgo (Jun 22, 2021)

Whereditgo said:



			My next 5 scores to be replaced are all counting scores, so looks like with a run of poor form my HI is likely to jump up over the next couple of weeks.....just in time to meet up with @Smiffy and @JustOne 

Click to expand...

Failed on the first attempt - a slightly lower score than the one falling off!


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

It's definitely not 'working well' for me. I moved from a 131 slope course with a very easy greens, to a 117 slope course with impossible greens. My scores have been about the same, but thanks to the ridiculous slope rating difference, I need to shoot 5 to 6 shots better at my new course for WHS to rate it the same. There's an 82 at my old course going off my last 20 in two rounds time, so it looks like I need to shoot 77 in one of the Club Champ rounds this weekend. Absolutely zero chance of that. The slope ratings are a joke.


----------



## jim8flog (Jun 23, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			Everyone’s circumstances are different. For some you are right but for others, who perhaps don’t play quite as often, some who are learning so don’t want to register every round as they will be being coached round and trying new things, and perhaps some who are finding it a bit harder to meet people to sign a card for them (especially with reduction of roll-ups) 8 rounds could take a while.

Would 8 rounds make a difference?  I’ve just played my 7th. My index after 7 is actually 2.3 higher than it was after 3, as I’ve not got any substantially better rounds in after my 3, and lost the -2 adjustment.

It’s a good discussion and the points you are making are interesting. From my end of (in)experience, I think the system is pretty good and I can’t see the increased number of cards requirement before being allowed to compete making much difference.
		
Click to expand...

You will not have what is considered to be a full handicap record until you have 20 cards in and some of the aspects of the WHS do not apply until you reach that number.

To have a reasonably stable H.I. your target should be at least 17 cards.

if you do not know the calculations that apply to you

7 to 8            Average of the lowest 2
9 to 11           Average of the lowest 3
12 to 14        Average of the lowest 4
15-16            Average of the lowest 5
17-18           Average of the lowest 6
19                Average of the lowest  7
20 or more   Average of the lowest  8


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			It's definitely not 'working well' for me. I moved from a 131 slope course with a very easy greens, to a 117 slope course with impossible greens. My scores have been about the same, but thanks to the ridiculous slope rating difference, I need to shoot 5 to 6 shots better at my new course for WHS to rate it the same. There's an 82 at my old course going off my last 20 in two rounds time, so it looks like I need to shoot 77 in one of the Club Champ rounds this weekend. Absolutely zero chance of that. The slope ratings are a joke.
		
Click to expand...

What's the course rating tho? That's far more important


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			What's the course rating tho? That's far more important
		
Click to expand...

Old course rating is 68.3, slope 131 (par 68).
New one is 67.2, slope 117 (par 69). 

The slope is obviously what makes the difference, because I have a counting score of 90 from my old course, and a non-counting score of 85 from the new course. That difference is ridiculous, there is no way on this earth that my new course is over 5 shots easier. It's just not. Something is wrong in those ratings.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Old course rating is 68.3, slope 131 (par 68).
New one is 67.2, slope 117 (par 69). 

The slope is obviously what makes the difference, because I have a counting score of 90 from my old course, and a non-counting score of 85 from the new course. That difference is ridiculous, there is no way on this earth that my new course is over 5 shots easier. It's just not. Something is wrong in those ratings.
		
Click to expand...

So old course course rating is just a bit over par so 

New course is 1 shot longer but it's rating is 2 almost 2 shots easier than par 

It's like us off whites both par 72 .. slope 117 and 121 get one extra shot

But rating is 71.8 for yellow and 74.2 for whites so a good score off whites looks even better when adjusted than a yellow score


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 23, 2021)

SCORE DIFFERENTIAL = (ADJUSTED GROSS SCORE – COURSE RATING) * (113/SLOPE RATING)


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Old course rating is 68.3, slope 131 (par 68).
New one is 67.2, slope 117 (par 69). 

The slope is obviously what makes the difference, because I have a counting score of 90 from my old course, and a non-counting score of 85 from the new course. That difference is ridiculous, there is no way on this earth that my new course is over 5 shots easier. It's just not. Something is wrong in those ratings.
		
Click to expand...

It's worth also remember slope isn't difficulty 

It's the difference in score between a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer .. 

So your new course might punish them the same 

Ours does for example .. links style both low and high players have equal chance of punishment


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			So old course course rating is just a bit over par so

New course is 1 shot longer but it's rating is 2 almost 2 shots easier than par

It's like us off whites both par 72 .. slope 117 and 121 get one extra shot

But rating is 71.8 for yellow and 74.2 for whites so a good score off whites looks even better when adjusted than a yellow score
		
Click to expand...

Well, as I said, it's Club Champs this weekend, so two rounds. An 82 on my old course will drop off my record. So in theory I could probably go and shoot 80 on both days, win the net medal prize by being 6* under, and my handicap would stay the same as it was. 

*edit: actually 8 under


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Well, as I said, it's Club Champs this weekend, so two rounds. An 82 on my old course will drop off my record. So in theory I could probably go and shoot 80 on both days, win the net medal prize by being 6 under, and my handicap would stay the same as it was. 

Click to expand...

Now don't be silly you won't be shooting that 😜


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			It's worth also remember slope isn't difficulty

It's the difference in score between a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer ..

So your new course might punish them the same

Ours does for example .. links style both low and high players have equal chance of punishment
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what wording you use, it's still effectively the higher the slope the more difficult the course in layman's terms. Because I get more shots if the slope is higher. 🤷🏻‍♂️  The main difficulty at my new club is the greens, and I think typically it is higher handicappers who don't putt as well.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			It doesn't matter what wording you use, it's still effectively the higher the slope the more difficult the course in layman's terms. Because I get more shots if the slope is higher. 🤷🏻‍♂️  The main difficulty at my new club is the greens, and I think typically it is higher handicappers who don't putt as well.
		
Click to expand...

Don't get me started its blooming annoying I get more shots at course I can hit better round lol but hey ho 

All because the "world" handicap system is done differently in England lol 

We use Americans OLD system and they use a slightly new equation that puts course rating into it aswell 

Under that I'd get more shots at my own club than the one down road but under this system other way round 

And my course is one the hardest around in people's opinions


----------



## jim8flog (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			It doesn't matter what wording you use, it's still effectively the higher the slope the more difficult the course in layman's terms. Because I get more shots if the slope is higher. 🤷🏻‍♂️  The main difficulty at my new club is the greens, and I think typically it is higher handicappers who don't putt as well.
		
Click to expand...

 If I changed courses I would aim to get in as many cards as quickly as possible so that my handicap index reflected the new course rather than the old one.

We have two courses where I play and intend never to submit any cards of one of them simply because it is so easy compared to other (it is reflected somewhat in the Slope rating).


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			If I changed courses I would aim to get in as many cards as quickly as possible so that my handicap index reflected the new course rather than the old one.

We have two courses where I play and intend never to submit any cards of one of them simply because it is so easy compared to other (it is reflected somewhat in the Slope rating).
		
Click to expand...

I'm still of the view that I only want to enter competition rounds, and I've done three comps since everything opened up in April, shooting 87, 85 & 90. Two more cards going in this weekend though, as mentioned. 

Doing loads of cards straight away would have been a terrible idea, unless I wanted my handicap to skyrocket. It's taken me this long to start getting used to the greens and not be hitting 38 putts per round!


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			It doesn't matter what wording you use, it's still effectively the higher the slope the more difficult the course in layman's terms. Because I get more shots if the slope is higher. 🤷🏻‍♂️  The main difficulty at my new club is the greens, and I think typically it is higher handicappers who don't putt as well.
		
Click to expand...

Have you not hit the nail on the head why the slope is fairly low. The difficulty is the greens so there's you answer.

Putting should be a level playing field between low and high handicaps, a 20 foot putt is a 20 foot putt.


Orikoru said:



			I'm still of the view that I only want to enter competition rounds, and I've done three comps since everything opened up in April, shooting 87, 85 & 90. Two more cards going in this weekend though, as mentioned.

Doing loads of cards straight away would have been a terrible idea, unless I wanted my handicap to skyrocket. It's taken me this long to start getting used to the greens and not be hitting 38 putts per round!
		
Click to expand...

But then your handicap would reflect your current ability.

It can also come down just as quickly when you find form.

Two examples of how it can work:
My mate has gone from 2.7 to 4.6
I have gone from 5.7 to 3.0

We have had similar handicaps for years, I have come into form this season after a couple of bad years and he is doing the opposite at present but we are both putting plenty of cards in.


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

saving_par said:



			Have you not hit the nail on the head why the slope is fairly low. The difficulty is the greens so there's you answer.

Putting should be a level playing field between low and high handicaps, a 20 foot putt is a 20 foot putt.


But then your handicap would reflect your current ability.

It can also come down just as quickly when you find form.

Two examples of how it can work:
My mate has gone from 2.7 to 4.6
I have gone from 5.7 to 3.0

We have had similar handicaps for years, I have come into form this season after a couple of bad years and he is doing the opposite at present but we are both putting plenty of cards in.
		
Click to expand...

My non-comp rounds I like to experiment, hit daft shots, we have generous gimmes on occasions, take drops from not strictly the correct location.. I just can't get my head around the idea of these all counting towards our handicaps.


----------



## Imurg (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			My non-comp rounds I like to experiment, hit daft shots, we have generous gimmes on occasions, take drops from not strictly the correct location.. I just can't get my head around the idea of these all counting towards our handicaps. 

Click to expand...

They wouldn't because you're not playing strictly to the rules but there's nothing to stop you putting in, say, 1 out of 3..just play that one as if it were a comp.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			It's definitely not 'working well' for me. I moved from a 131 slope course with a very easy greens, to a 117 slope course with impossible greens. My scores have been about the same, but thanks to the ridiculous slope rating difference, I need to shoot 5 to 6 shots better at my new course for WHS to rate it the same. There's an 82 at my old course going off my last 20 in two rounds time, so it looks like I need to shoot 77 in one of the Club Champ rounds this weekend. Absolutely zero chance of that. The slope ratings are a joke.
		
Click to expand...

It seems you really don't understand Slope. You can't compare the slope of one course with the slope of another.
*The basic difficulty of a course is the Course Rating.* The slope ONLY tells you the relative difficulty of a specific course for higher handicapper as opposed to a lower handicapper.

131 vs 117 tells you absolutely zilch. What are the Course Ratings of both courses?


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

rulefan said:



			It seems you really don't understand Slope. You can't compare the slope of one course with the slope of another.
*The basic difficulty of a course is the Course Rating.* The slope ONLY tells you the relative difficulty of a specific course for higher handicapper as opposed to a lower handicapper.

131 vs 117 tells you absolutely zilch. What are the Course Ratings of both courses?
		
Click to expand...

Please see post #86.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			My non-comp rounds I like to experiment, hit daft shots, we have generous gimmes on occasions, take drops from not strictly the correct location.. I just can't get my head around the idea of these all counting towards our handicaps. 

Click to expand...

You shouldn't be returning them for handicapping.  All handicap rounds must be played by the Rules of Golf and you must endeavour to make your best score.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Old course rating is 68.3, slope 131 (par 68).
New one is 67.2, slope 117 (par 69).

The slope is obviously what makes the difference, because I have a counting score of 90 from my old course, and a non-counting score of 85 from the new course. That difference is ridiculous, there is no way on this earth that my new course is over 5 shots easier. It's just not. Something is wrong in those ratings.
		
Click to expand...

There is something wrong with only taking 2 figures to prove a statically significant point.
What is the average differential of your last 20 scores at each course?


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

rulefan said:



			You shouldn't be returning them for handicapping. Haven't you read the instructions. All handicap rounds must be plated by the Rules of Golf and you must endeavour to make your best score.
		
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Hence why I haven't submitted any non-comp rounds, like I said.


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

rulefan said:



			There is something wrong with only taking 2 figures to prove a statically significant point.
What is the average differential of your last 20 scores at each course?
		
Click to expand...

We've already established I've only put 3 cards in at the new course. An 85 gross here equals 17.2 score diff, whereas a 90 on my old course gave a score diff of 16.1. It just doesn't make any sense to me. The numbers are making it appear that I'm expected to shoot 6 shots better at my new course?? It's a nonsense.


----------



## JonnyGutteridge (Jun 23, 2021)

I know some people who have been a member of a club for almost 3 years now and don’t have 20 cards in during that time!!

Their club has a league which runs for months, bi-weekly events, quite prestigious within the club, and yet they don’t put cards in. However, performing well earns you a “cut” for the purposes of the league only. So one friend, who is off 15, has several good scores and now gets about 11 shots in their ‘league’ events... but club matches etc he gets 15! I think that is totally wrong, they play proper rules of golf, no gimmes etc.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 23, 2021)

Have I got this right? 

Score Differential
Old course  = (90 - 68.3) x (113/131) = 21.7 x 0.86 = 18.7
New course = (85 - 67.2) x (113/117) = 17.8 x 0.97 = 17.2 

Doesn't look like 6 shots.


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Have I got this right?

Score Differential
Old course  = (90 - 68.3) x (113/131) = 21.7 x 0.86 = 18.7
New course = (85 - 67.2) x (113/117) = 17.8 x 0.97 = 17.2

Doesn't look like 6 shots.
		
Click to expand...

Are you asking me???

The 90 at my old course is counting as one of my best 8. 85 at the new course is not. This is how I've extrapolated that I need to be 6 shots better at my new course for it to count, apparently. Can you understand my issue now?


----------



## rulefan (Jun 23, 2021)

It certainly seems odd. Have you tried whs.support@englandgolf.org ?

Are the differentials showing as I have calculated? Where are you viewing? The WHS portal or your club ISV ?


----------



## Vikingman (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Are you asking me???

The 90 at my old course is counting as one of my best 8. 85 at the new course is not. This is how I've extrapolated that I need to be 6 shots better at my new course for it to count, apparently. Can you understand my issue now?
		
Click to expand...

What was the PCC on the days in question.  If I look at my scores on the England golf app they are corrected for handicap adjustments (i.e net double bogie were applicable) but not for PCC.

To reconcile my scores with my handicap index I need to adjust the scores by the PCC.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 23, 2021)

Vikingman said:



			What was the PCC on the days in question.  If I look at my scores on the England golf app they are corrected for handicap adjustments (i.e net double bogie were applicable) but not for PCC.

To reconcile my scores with my handicap index I need to adjust the scores by the PCC.
		
Click to expand...

What shows on the WHS portal?


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jun 23, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Doing loads of cards straight away would have been a terrible idea, unless I wanted my handicap to skyrocket. It's taken me this long to start getting used to the greens and not be hitting 38 putts per round!
		
Click to expand...

If you’d done this, your handicap would have climbed, reflected your ability, and, if as you say, you are now improving again it would come back down. Is that what it is supposed to do?

I think what you are saying is that if you had done that, then gone back to your old course and played on your new higher handicap you’d have cleaned up. Is that the issue?


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 23, 2021)

rulefan said:



			It certainly seems odd. Have you tried whs.support@englandgolf.org ?

Are the differentials showing as I have calculated? Where are you viewing? The WHS portal or your club ISV ?
		
Click to expand...




There it is in IG. I have no idea how to check the PCC. (And the home club is wrong at the top, don't know why.)


----------



## rulefan (Jun 24, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			There it is in IG. I have no idea how to check the PCC. (And the home club is wrong at the top, don't know why.)
		
Click to expand...

Sign up to the WHS portal. The is a lot more detail there.
Have the two club secretaries transferred your membership correctly?


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 24, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Sign up to the WHS portal. The is a lot more detail there.
Have the two club secretaries transferred your membership correctly?
		
Click to expand...

Ah, ok. The two 90s from Haste Hill which are both counting scores, both say the PCC was 3! I don't fully know what that means but I guess it provides the explanation? My 85 at Grims Dyke, PCC is 0.

Also the home club issue is sorted now, I emailed GD last night when I noticed the error and they've sorted it.


----------



## Vikingman (Jun 24, 2021)

rulefan said:



			What shows on the WHS portal?
		
Click to expand...

Assuming that's the WHS platform its calculating the same way.


----------



## Vikingman (Jun 24, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Ah, ok. The two 90s from Haste Hill which are both counting scores, both say the PCC was 3! I don't fully know what that means but I guess it provides the explanation? My 85 at Grims Dyke, PCC is 0.

Also the home club issue is sorted now, I emailed GD last night when I noticed the error and they've sorted it.
		
Click to expand...




Orikoru said:



			Ah, ok. The two 90s from Haste Hill which are both counting scores, both say the PCC was 3! I don't fully know what that means but I guess it provides the explanation? My 85 at Grims Dyke, PCC is 0.

Also the home club issue is sorted now, I emailed GD last night when I noticed the error and they've sorted it.
		
Click to expand...

Looking at those scores you can see that on the 22 Aug 20 and 19 Sept 20 (both at Haste Hill) that adjusted gross scores of 90 and 87 both returned the same index of 16.1. I suspect the PCC on the 22nd Aug was 3 and the PCC on 19 Sept was 0, this would reduce the 22nd Aug score to 87 (90-3) thus equalling the score on the 19th Sept and returning the same index.  I also suspect on 01st May 21 the Grims Dyke PCC was 1.

Do you have other scores counting towards your handicap index? I ask because you show nine scores, hence your index would use only your best three, I thus calculated your index at 15.3 but your app shows 15.1, hence the question.


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 24, 2021)

Vikingman said:



			Looking at those scores you can see that on the 22 Aug 20 and 19 Sept 20 (both at Haste Hill) that adjusted gross scores of 90 and 87 both returned the same index of 16.1. I suspect the PCC on the 22nd Aug was 3 and the PCC on 19 Sept was 0, this would reduce the 22nd Aug score to 87 (90-3) thus equalling the score on the 19th Sept and returning the same index.  I also suspect on 01st May 21 the Grims Dyke PCC was 1.

Do you have other scores counting towards your handicap index? I ask because you show nine scores, hence your index would use only your best three, I thus calculated your index at 15.3 but your app shows 15.1, hence the question.
		
Click to expand...

I just trimmed the list because all the rounds that I was specifically referring to were in the last ten so there was no point adding a bigger screenshot.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 24, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			I just trimmed the list because all the rounds that I was specifically referring to were in the last ten so there was no point adding a bigger screenshot.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I wondered about Vikingman's thought but realised you had truncated.


Orikoru said:



			Ah, ok. The two 90s from Haste Hill which are both counting scores, *both say the PCC was 3!* I don't fully know what that means but I guess it provides the explanation? My 85 at Grims Dyke, PCC is 0.

Also the home club issue is sorted now, I emailed GD last night when I noticed the error and they've sorted it.
		
Click to expand...

It effectively increases the Course Rating (ie the conditions were more difficult on that day).


----------



## Crazyface (Jun 24, 2021)

I find the best thing to do is not concern myself with how it all works, although I love figures and maths, and just play and put my scores in. The wife is really in to it all, loves to know how things work, but can't fathom WHS LOL 🤣. On another note both our scores weren't counted in our 8 scores to count, yet both our handicaps went up. Bonkers


----------



## rulefan (Jun 24, 2021)

Crazyface said:



			I find the best thing to do is not concern myself with how it all works, although I love figures and maths, and just play and put my scores in. The wife is really in to it all, loves to know how things work, but can't fathom WHS LOL 🤣. On another note both our scores weren't counted in our 8 scores to count, yet both our handicaps went up. Bonkers
		
Click to expand...

Your 20th score, which might have been one of the 8, may have been demoted to 21st.


----------



## Beezerk (Jun 25, 2021)

Lad I play with has just put his three cards in for his first handicap, +14, +18 and +24. He's been given a handicap of 12.1 🙈🤣
How the heck does that work then?
We had him off 16 in the society and he's never come close to winning anything, he's never beaten me either and I'm of 13 😅


----------



## Fabia999 (Jun 25, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			Lad I play with has just put his three cards in for his first handicap, +14, +18 and +24. He's been given a handicap of 12.1 🙈🤣
How the heck does that work then?
We had him off 16 in the society and he's never come close to winning anything, he's never beaten me either and I'm of 13 😅
		
Click to expand...

Depends on the rating of the course thats he played. He might have a base handicap of 12.1 but whats his course handicap?


----------



## Bdill93 (Jun 25, 2021)

Fabia999 said:



			Depends on the rating of the course thats he played. He might have a base handicap of 12.1 but whats his course handicap?
		
Click to expand...

First handicap is best score -2

3 scores:  Lowest score -2
4 scores: lowest score -1
5 scores: lowest score
6 scores: average of lowest 2 -1
7-8 scores: average of lowest 2
9-11 scores: avg of lowest 3
12-14: avg of lowest 4
15-16: avg of lowest 5
17-18: avg of lowest 6
19: average of lowest 7
20:  best 8 of 2



Get more cards in, it'll soon come up


----------



## Beezerk (Jun 25, 2021)

Bdill93 said:



			First handicap is best score -2

3 scores:  Lowest score -2
4 scores: lowest score -1
5 scores: lowest score
6 scores: average of lowest 2 -1
7-8 scores: average of lowest 2
9-11 scores: avg of lowest 3
12-14: avg of lowest 4
15-16: avg of lowest 5
17-18: avg of lowest 6
19: average of lowest 7
20:  best 8 of 2



Get more cards in, it'll soon come up
		
Click to expand...

Aah thanks, that's perfect 👍
What isn't perfect is his handicap for our Texas scramble team tomorrow 😅


----------



## Bdill93 (Jun 25, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			Aah thanks, that's perfect 👍
What isn't perfect is his handicap for our Texas scramble team tomorrow 😅
		
Click to expand...

Yeah its not ideal... nothing to stop him playing a cheeky 9 holes this evening to gain a shot...


----------



## rulefan (Jun 25, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			Aah thanks, that's perfect 👍
What isn't perfect is his handicap for our Texas scramble team tomorrow 😅
		
Click to expand...

The post by Bdill93 is not accurate. *It is not based on scores* but on Score Differentials.
This needs the Course Rating and Slope of the course & tees played
The Score Differential = (113/Slope) x (Gross score - Course Rating).
His Index is thne used to calculate his Course Handicap ie Index x (Slope/113) which means he will play off a few shots higher than 12 depending on the tees.

Have you got the Course Rating and Slope for the tees he played? We can show you how 12.1 was arrived at.


----------



## jim8flog (Jun 25, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			Lad I play with has just put his three cards in for his first handicap, +14, +18 and +24. He's been given a handicap of 12.1 🙈🤣
How the heck does that work then?
We had him off 16 in the society and he's never come close to winning anything, he's never beaten me either and I'm of 13 😅
		
Click to expand...

 Only the best card is used, ignore the rest, and *very roughly* it is best score minus 2 shots so 14-12=12


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 25, 2021)

rulefan said:



			The post by Bdill93 is not accurate. *It is not based on scores* but on Score Differentials.
This needs the Course Rating and Slope of the course & tees played
The Score Differential = (113/Slope) x (Gross score - Course Rating).
His Index is thne used to calculate his Course Handicap ie Index x (Slope/113) which means he will play off a few shots higher than 12 depending on the tees.

Have you got the Course Rating and Slope for the tees he played? We can show you how 12.1 was arrived at.
		
Click to expand...

Had the same convo with one of our group on WhatsApp, he didn't understand why one of our pp scores didn't count but was lower than another 

Explained it was off yellows and that was off whites and the differancals are all that matters not scores themselves 

These threads are so useful , found out more from here than our club


----------



## rulefan (Jun 25, 2021)

Oddly rule4.5 doesn't mention _differentials_ for initial index allocation, only _scores._
But to have got the decimal figure of 12.1 a decimal related calculation must have been done. I hope the 3 scores in #121 were from different tees. Hopefully Fabia999 will soon let us know.


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Jun 25, 2021)

Interestingly we are seeing some excessive low scores but these are all from players with a full playing record. A couple have 20 scores since the end of lockdown. I guess it was ever thus!

Personally it's been the first time I have seen 2 X Net 60 win our medals and a 50 point stableford winner!

All got hit with Exceptional Score Adjustments.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 25, 2021)

mikejohnchapman said:



			Interestingly we are seeing some excessive low scores but these are all from players with a full playing record. A couple have 20 scores since the end of lockdown. I guess it was ever thus!

Personally it's been the first time I have seen 2 X Net 60 win our medals and a 50 point stableford winner!

All got hit with Exceptional Score Adjustments.
		
Click to expand...

IMO it's all down (up) to Slope. Players are now getting the strokes they never had before.


----------



## nickjdavis (Jun 25, 2021)

rulefan said:



			IMO it's all down (up) to Slope. Players are now getting the strokes they never had before.
		
Click to expand...

but that's a bit simplistic....because scores are desloped to get the index....the WHS giveth with one hand but taketh away with the other


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 25, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			but that's a bit simplistic....because scores are desloped to get the index....the WHS giveth with one hand but taketh away with the other
		
Click to expand...

I think it's even more simple

Index is your old handicap for want of anything more ... You then more often than not get more shots than that thus being able to score better making people happy 

It's more accurate as it's constantly updating 

And lower index get more a chance due to 95% rule 

Think it's great


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Jun 25, 2021)

rulefan said:



			IMO it's all down (up) to Slope. Players are now getting the strokes they never had before.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure I wholly agree as only one person was a relative newcomer - the others are all mature handicap players - they just had exceptional scores.

The person to feel sorry for was the guy who shot a net 63 and lost by 3!


----------



## rulefan (Jun 25, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			but that's a bit simplistic....because scores are desloped to get the index....the WHS giveth with one hand but taketh away with the other
		
Click to expand...

Not really. mjp was talking about 60 net scores and 50 points not indices. Slope has a direct effect on them


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jun 27, 2021)

Well thats interesting.....

Following the comp yesterday I'm at 2.8 giving me a CH of 3 off all the tees at Silloth.

Looking at my scores under the 'old' Congu handicapping I would be off 4.9 and a playing handicap of 5....

Never got below 3.8 in my prime so not sure that I'm a proper 3 handicapper despite playing some decent stuff at the moment and coming down 4 shots this season 

I suppose it demonstrates my current form which is like like night and day from recent seasons and shows that some quality lessons do work


----------



## Springveldt (Jun 27, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			I think it's even more simple

Index is your old handicap for want of anything more ... You then more often than not get more shots than that thus being able to score better making people happy

It's more accurate as it's constantly updating

And lower index get more a chance due to 95% rule

Think it's great
		
Click to expand...

Possibly for higher handicaps but before WHS my CONGU was 9.1. Now my WHS is 7.1 but with both of them I’m off of 9 at my place, so it’s not made a blind bit of difference.

It actually hurts me if I got to other courses with a lower slope as I end up playing off 8 at a lot of them.

It’s not like I’ve had loads of great scores either, I’ve just been consistently shooting 81 or 82 (71.1 rating 139 slope) which would have been buffer under congu most weeks as the css was usually 71.


----------



## rulefan (Jun 27, 2021)

Springveldt said:



			It actually hurts me if I got to other courses with a lower slope as I end up playing off 8 at a lot of them.
		
Click to expand...

What about courses with a higher slope?
But remember it is both slope *and course rating* that sets your differential not just slope.


----------



## Springveldt (Jun 27, 2021)

rulefan said:



			What about courses with a higher slope?
But remember it is both slope *and course rating* that sets your differential not just slope.
		
Click to expand...

Not many courses I play with a rating/slope that will get me to 10 unless it’s some sort of championship course. 

Actually just had a quick look. Even if I went to Close House and played the Blue tees on the Colt I’m still off 9 according the the England Golf app.


----------



## pauljames87 (Jun 27, 2021)

Springveldt said:



			Not many courses I play with a rating/slope that will get me to 10 unless it’s some sort of championship course.

Actually just had a quick look. Even if I went to Close House and played the Blue tees on the Colt I’m still off 9 according the the England Golf app.
		
Click to expand...

So whs is saying your a true 9 handicap and need all 9 shots no?

Where as others need more


----------



## Orikoru (Jun 28, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			It's definitely not 'working well' for me. I moved from a 131 slope course with a very easy greens, to a 117 slope course with impossible greens. My scores have been about the same, but thanks to the ridiculous slope rating difference, I need to shoot 5 to 6 shots better at my new course for WHS to rate it the same. There's an 82 at my old course going off my last 20 in two rounds time, so it looks like I need to shoot 77 in one of the Club Champ rounds this weekend. Absolutely zero chance of that. The slope ratings are a joke.
		
Click to expand...

Well I have gone up but not as much as I thought. The 82 at Haste Hill has dropped off as I said, but I shot 84 & 89 on the weekend, and the 84 is now a counting score. Handicap has only gone from 15.1 to 15.5, and that still means I get 15 shots in comps anyway, so no change in real terms. 

I preferred the old system in the sense that I knew what was going to happen to my handicap straight away, i.e. if I was getting a cut and roughly how much, or whether I was going up 0.1. Now it seems like a total lottery, but I just have to learn to forget about it entirely and wait and see.


----------



## Rlburnside (Jun 28, 2021)

mikejohnchapman said:



			Interestingly we are seeing some excessive low scores but these are all from players with a full playing record. A couple have 20 scores since the end of lockdown. I guess it was ever thus!

Personally it's been the first time I have seen 2 X Net 60 win our medals and a 50 point stableford winner!

All got hit with Exceptional Score Adjustments.
		
Click to expand...

When you say they got hit with Exceptional Score Adjustments is this done via the computer or does the handicap secretary adjust his h/c?


----------



## rulefan (Jun 28, 2021)

Rlburnside said:



			When you say they got hit with Exceptional Score Adjustments is this done via the computer or does the handicap secretary adjust his h/c?
		
Click to expand...

I though they were automatic via the software but could be overruled by the committee. Rule 5.9


----------



## rosecott (Jun 28, 2021)

rulefan said:



			I though they were automatic via the software but could be overruled by the committee. Rule 5.9
		
Click to expand...

They are applied automatically by WHS.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jun 28, 2021)

HI 8.1 to 9.9 in 11 months and about to lose a 7.6. 

But I am not bothered - nothing like I used to be when I fretted about going up 0.1s. 

With WHS I know that once I am through the transition to my new bats I’ll be replacing the current load of rubbish making up my 8 with better scores and I expect my HI to start coming down pretty pronto - as WHS is designed to do.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 6, 2021)

Is anyone surprised ?


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 6, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



View attachment 37404


Is anyone surprised ?
		
Click to expand...

Hardly inclusive, why don't they just instigate divisions for all comps.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jul 6, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



View attachment 37404


Is anyone surprised ?
		
Click to expand...

I am impressed that they have sufficient statistical expertise to be able to robustly come to this conclusion. 

Their website says “we run a full program of competitions”. Presumably that’ll be qualified shortly by the addition of “for golfers up to a handicap index of 22.5”.

You are allowed to play The Old Course with a handicap of 36. But you’re not allowed to enter this club’s   comps. I wonder if membership fees are lower if your index is >22.5 too. 

Surely you let everyone play, but have some comps for the low handicaps, scratch comps, and divisions.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 6, 2021)

Does this mean that you can't enter the comp if your handicap is higher or that your handicap will be capped? I'm expecting capped but it isn't quite clear.


----------



## BiMGuy (Jul 6, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			I am impressed that they have sufficient statistical expertise to be able to robustly come to this conclusion.

Their website says “we run a full program of competitions”. Presumably that’ll be qualified shortly by the addition of “for golfers up to a handicap index of 22.5”.

You are allowed to play The Old Course with a handicap of 36. But you’re not allowed to enter this club’s   comps. I wonder if membership fees are lower if your index is >22.5 too.

Surely you let everyone play, but have some comps for the low handicaps, scratch comps, and divisions.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't read anything that said anyone with a HI over 22.5 can't play. Just that 22.5 is the maximum HI allowed will be 22.5. Presumably anyone with enough qualifying scores, but with an index over the allowance can play, but will play off the maximum 22.5.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 6, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			I am impressed that they have sufficient statistical expertise to be able to robustly come to this conclusion.

Their website says “we run a full program of competitions”. Presumably that’ll be qualified shortly by the addition of “for golfers up to a handicap index of 22.5”.

You are allowed to play The Old Course with a handicap of 36. But you’re not allowed to enter this club’s   comps. I wonder if membership fees are lower if your index is >22.5 too.

Surely you let everyone play, but have some comps for the low handicaps, scratch comps, and divisions.
		
Click to expand...

A committee showing lack of imagination. I presume they will no longer hold opens as they will have no easy way of checking the amount of cards visitors have done.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 6, 2021)

BiMGuy said:



			I didn't read anything that said anyone with a HI over 22.5 can't play. Just that 22.5 is the maximum HI allowed will be 22.5. Presumably anyone with enough qualifying scores, but with an index over the allowance can play, but will play off the maximum 22.5.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure many members will pay to enter a comp that restricts them playing off their correct HC.


----------



## BiMGuy (Jul 6, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Not sure many members will pay to enter a comp that restricts them playing off their correct HC.
		
Click to expand...

That's up to them. It might spur them on to improve!


----------



## rulefan (Jul 6, 2021)

I wonder how many local clubs will take advantage of all the high cappers who will looking for another club.


----------



## apj0524 (Jul 6, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			A committee showing lack of imagination. I presume they will no longer hold opens as they *will have no easy way of checking the amount of cards visitors have done*.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you say that for Opens we can check visitors hop on Dotgolf and see how many rounds they have played and when?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 6, 2021)

BiMGuy said:



			That's up to them. It might spur them on to improve!
		
Click to expand...

They might be as good as they can be 🤷‍♂️.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 6, 2021)

apj0524 said:



			Why do you say that for Opens we can check visitors hop on Dotgolf and see how many rounds they have played and when?
		
Click to expand...

Can’t see many wanting to trawl through the DB unless their opens aren’t that well attended, but clubs have their choice so its up to them, thankfully it won’t be a policy we would adopt.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 6, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			They might be as good as they can be 🤷‍♂️.
		
Click to expand...

Or the low handicappers aren’t as good as they think they are.


----------



## IainP (Jul 6, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



View attachment 37404


Is anyone surprised ?
		
Click to expand...

By the apostrophes?
😉


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 6, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Or the low handicappers aren’t as good as they think they are.
		
Click to expand...

Ouch 🤣


----------



## Billysboots (Jul 6, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			I preferred the old system in the sense that I knew what was going to happen to my handicap straight away, i.e. if I was getting a cut and roughly how much, or whether I was going up 0.1. Now it seems like a total lottery, but I just have to learn to forget about it entirely and wait and see.
		
Click to expand...

Now I’ve got my head round it I’m finding it quite straightforward, and can work out my HI to within 0.1 or 0.2 without too many difficulties.

Ultimately it’s not the gross score which is relevant, but the score differential. Now I’ve got enough counting scores I can generally assess what each gross score off each tee at ours will equate to in terms of score differential. It’s then simply a case of averaging the best eight differentials from the last twenty.

It confused the 💩 out of me for a while before the penny dropped, but I can now track my HI as accurately as I could my handicap under the old system.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 6, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Or the low handicappers aren’t as good as they think they are.
		
Click to expand...

🤷‍♂️ Confused with what that has to do with what the golf club has done ? 

Surely if whs works well then the low handicaps will be reflected of their ability - 

This year for me to win any comp I would have had to go round in at least 4 under par gross - I was 2 under gross at the weekend and it wasn’t good enough to win the comp on a tough course set up 

I can see why the club have done what they have 

There are many clubs that are seeing members who haven’t played 20 Q rounds be given handicaps a lot higher than their ability - we have seen net 60 , 45 points plus etc win ours and some clubs have seen a lot worse 

Yes it will prob all settle down once people play 20 rounds but I can certainly understand why a club would look to put some restrictions in place - I know many are getting rid of the scramble recommendations because it favours the high HC , others putting in maximum shots in KOs etc 

Maybe WhS isn’t giving everyone a true reflection of their playing ability


----------



## BiMGuy (Jul 6, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Or the low handicappers aren’t as good as they think they are.
		
Click to expand...

What a strange comment. 

They would be still better than the high handicappers.


----------



## Old Skier (Jul 6, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			🤷‍♂️ Confused with what that has to do with what the golf club has done ?

Surely if whs works well then the low handicaps will be reflected of their ability -

This year for me to win any comp I would have had to go round in at least 4 under par gross - I was 2 under gross at the weekend and it wasn’t good enough to win the comp on a tough course set up

I can see why the club have done what they have

There are many clubs that are seeing members who haven’t played 20 Q rounds be given handicaps a lot higher than their ability - we have seen net 60 , 45 points plus etc win ours and some clubs have seen a lot worse

Yes it will prob all settle down once people play 20 rounds but I can certainly understand why a club would look to put some restrictions in place - I know many are getting rid of the scramble recommendations because it favours the high HC , others putting in maximum shots in KOs etc

Maybe WhS isn’t giving everyone a true reflection of their playing ability
		
Click to expand...

Most of us that deal with handicaps would agree that the issue over lack of cards for newer members (or those that fail to declare previous playing ability) needs careful management by those organising comps. My own opinion is not allowing them to enter comps of their true handicap isn’t the answer. There is also the issue of older members who have passed their peek and are in the never ending ladder to a higher handicap.

Looking at the course card of the club that sent out that letter it’s hardly surprising that high handicappers have an unfair advantage. Splitting all their comps into division would solve their problem.


----------



## JonnyGutteridge (Jul 6, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Not sure many members will pay to enter a comp that restricts them playing off their correct HC.
		
Click to expand...

Our matchplay knockout is played to a max handicap of 18. Plenty of players with handicaps 19-28 happily enter, but they play off 18 in their matches.

On the subject of WHS, having 20 rounds in order to qualify for comps etc. Should something not also be done about players with like 15+ supplementary scores in their last 20 rounds? I honestly think a maximum of 5 supplementary cards should count towards your last 20 rounds. 

I played a match recently where the chap had 16-17 supp cards during the last month and 3-4 competition rounds. His handicap had increased from circa 7.2 to 9.3 or something as a result.

Firstly, who plays 20 times in a month and gets 2 shots worse?
And secondly, he played like a 7 handicapper. It was painfully obvious... he was level par through 7 holes!! He had a major blowup on one hole, which yes, would have cost him any sort of score in a medal, but that kind of golfer is already dangerous in a matchplay, let alone when he gets a month worth of practice and an extra 2 shots!

Likewise, there's 1 or 2 people i've noticed with + handicaps who have 15 or so scores of level par in supplementary rounds. And 5 scores of 82 in the recent competitions, to make up their final 20. I will miss out on several competitions this year due to handicap ballots on over subscribed events, to people like that.


----------



## Crazyface (Jul 7, 2021)

Quick question. A mate entered a wrong score on a supplementary score and pressed accept before I could stop him. This has dropped his HC by four shots. Not really problem as he doesn't play comps. Also he has only about seven scores entered, but the wrongly entered one is obviously counting along with one other that was a proper reasonable score. WHS is ignoring the rest. He'd like to get his HC to where it should be. Can this incorrectly entered score be removed?


----------



## sweaty sock (Jul 7, 2021)

Confused by peoples attitudes to this

1.  Lets play golf, but to keep everyone interested lets give some a head start.  We cant get the headstarts correct for everyone all the time, even with a huge statistically based analysis taking into account all the data we have for millions of players,  but hey its either that or...

2. Lets play golf, lowest score wins.  Yes the handful of naturally gifted / dedicated / experienced players at the club will win more often than us that play once a week and dont practice.  Thats the same as every other endeavour in life.

3.  We, the statistical savants, can just change the system on gut feel, because well you know, we know best.

I think number 3 is by far the worst case.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 7, 2021)

Crazyface said:



			Quick question. A mate entered a wrong score on a supplementary score and pressed accept before I could stop him. This has dropped his HC by four shots. Not really problem as he doesn't play comps. Also he has only about seven scores entered, but the wrongly entered one is obviously counting along with one other that was a proper reasonable score. WHS is ignoring the rest. He'd like to get his HC to where it should be. Can this incorrectly entered score be removed?
		
Click to expand...

One for the handicap secretary. They will get it removed.


----------



## rulefan (Jul 7, 2021)

Crazyface said:



			Quick question. A mate entered a wrong score on a supplementary score and pressed accept before I could stop him. This has dropped his HC by four shots. Not really problem as he doesn't play comps. Also he has only about seven scores entered, but the wrongly entered one is obviously counting along with one other that was a proper reasonable score. WHS is ignoring the rest. He'd like to get his HC to where it should be. Can this incorrectly entered score be removed?
		
Click to expand...

It can be corrected on the WHS platform.


----------



## patricks148 (Jul 7, 2021)

Can a player from another country play in one of the other union comps and the score still count for handicap or put in GP score on their apps on a course in another country?


----------



## rulefan (Jul 7, 2021)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			Our matchplay knockout is played to a max handicap of 18. Plenty of players with handicaps 19-28 happily enter, but they play off 18 in their matches.
		
Click to expand...

Prior to WHS, England Golf had ruled that handicaps must not be limited in matchplay. However they have had to modify their stance as, in their words, "_WHS will allow the capping of the Playing handicap, however it is our belief that this is against the spirit of the game and should be avoided if possible"._


----------



## rulefan (Jul 7, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			Can a player from another country play in one of the other union comps and the score still count for handicap or put in GP score on their apps on a course in another country?
		
Click to expand...

Yes to both but the various national systems don't yet communicate properly (or at all) so your score returns will have to be done via your club.


----------



## jim8flog (Jul 7, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



View attachment 37404


Is anyone surprised ?
		
Click to expand...

I am to some extent. What is happening at you club is not happening at ours, a quick run through of our  comps since July 2020 and the highest handicap of a winner is 21.6.

Why the limit to 26 in a divisional comp?  I cannot understand why they do not simply change the divisions.  

We pay out prize money according to the number of players in each division so it is not as if they are taking away the prize money for players with better handicap.

When handicaps went to 54, several years ago, we had a bit of an out cry because Open comp entry was often limited to 28.


----------



## wjemather (Jul 7, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



View attachment 37404


Is anyone surprised ?
		
Click to expand...

Requesting players pay entry fees for competitions they are not allowed to win is just the icing on the cake. Embarrassing.


----------



## Bdill93 (Jul 7, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Requesting players pay entry fees for competitions they are not allowed to win is just the icing on the cake. Embarrassing.
		
Click to expand...

20 cards in the system could take someone a year to build up too! Obviously not an inclusive club!


----------



## IanM (Jul 7, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Requesting players pay entry fees for competitions they are not allowed to win is just the icing on the cake. Embarrassing.
		
Click to expand...

That is rather daft...why would you hand over the money.  Mind you most of us hand over a fiver every Saturday morning and know we won't win!   

Putting comps in Divisions sorts this out.  It is that simple.  Scratch events are scratch events, even if you ballot folk out on numbers.

Given the volatility of new players handicaps, I can see the rationale for insisting folk have a certain number of cards in, but it needs handling sensitively and appropriately   Some folk will get 20 cards a couple of months, others might takes much much longer!

 Of course, this is another manifestation of authorities focusing on intent and ignoring the implications of what they were implementing.


----------



## nickjdavis (Jul 7, 2021)

Whilst I'd say that looking at our results this summer the majority of winners are of higher handicaps, it is equally true that lower handicappers have been "in contention" and may only be a small handful of strokes away. The simple fact of the matter is though that there are far more members with handicaps of 16-24 (52%)than there are 0-15 (28%) so statistically its is likely that a higher handicap will win or place in any given competition.

I wonder how many clubs who are complaining about higher handicaps winning things have actually bothered to look deeply into the issue and determine the relative make-up handicap wise of the competition fields. If they have merely looked at the winners it may not be representational of the wider picture...really they would need to look at say the top 10 places to get a view of what is really happening....if these places are always dominated by higher handicappers then yes, there may well be an issue...bit without knowing the spread of handicaps in a field it is not possible to simply look at a result and say that an "out of proportion" number of higher handicaps are winning things.

We had a guy win div 3 of a medal on Sunday with a nett 59 (was also best nett overall). He has 80+ scores in his record and on Sunday had a playing handicap of 21. Before Sunday his previous 20 gross scores ranged from 88-102. On Sunday he shot a gross 80. If you went back historically through his scores from last summer and used the old Congu methodology of calculating his handicap then by my reckoning it would have dropped from 20.0 in June last year to 19.5 before Sunday. So under the old method he would have played off 20....so the WHS has afforded him just a single shot more than the Congu method would have done....hardly a passport to guaranteed victory. I've done similar analysis on other golfers and the only time I've seen significant variation is when a player has few scores in his records. The average playing handicap of golfers filling the top 10 places in the comp was 16. The average playing handicap of the field was 15....that does not seem disproportional to me.

So, whilst it is probably fair to say that players who have poorly developed records will have an index that is perhaps not reflective of their ability I do not see in practice any evidence that the WHS is giving golfers noticeably higher handicaps and therefore an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. I remember that when the first WHS Indexes were issued about 50% of our members had indexes within 1 shot either way of their current Congu Handicap, 30% had indexes that were lower by more than 1 shot and 20% had indexes higher by more than 1 shot. Again, hardly firm evidence that the WHS allocated higher handicaps than necessary.

To restrict a player from competing off his handicap, gained fairly under the rules of the system, is fundamentally unfair. If you believe that the system is failing, don't punish the players, lobby effectively for change.


----------



## Beezerk (Jul 7, 2021)

I love this new system, gone up from 12.6 to 13.1 this year and I've only played in one comp 😅
My goal of getting to 14 by the years end is right on track 🥳


----------



## Bdill93 (Jul 7, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			Whilst I'd say that looking at our results this summer the majority of winners are of higher handicaps, it is equally true that lower handicappers have been "in contention" and may only be a small handful of strokes away. The simple fact of the matter is though that there are far more members with handicaps of 16-24 (52%)than there are 0-15 (28%) so statistically its is likely that a higher handicap will win or place in any given competition.

I wonder how many clubs who are complaining about higher handicaps winning things have actually bothered to look deeply into the issue and determine the relative make-up handicap wise of the competition fields. If they have merely looked at the winners it may not be representational of the wider picture...really they would need to look at say the top 10 places to get a view of what is really happening....if these places are always dominated by higher handicappers then yes, there may well be an issue...bit without knowing the spread of handicaps in a field it is not possible to simply look at a result and say that an "out of proportion" number of higher handicaps are winning things.

We had a guy win div 3 of a medal on Sunday with a nett 59 (was also best nett overall). He has 80+ scores in his record and on Sunday had a playing handicap of 21. Before Sunday his previous 20 gross scores ranged from 88-102. On Sunday he shot a gross 80. If you went back historically through his scores from last summer and used the old Congu methodology of calculating his handicap then by my reckoning it would have dropped from 20.0 in June last year to 19.5 before Sunday. So under the old method he would have played off 20....so the WHS has afforded him just a single shot more than the Congu method would have done....hardly a passport to guaranteed victory. I've done similar analysis on other golfers and the only time I've seen significant variation is when a player has few scores in his records. The average playing handicap of golfers filling the top 10 places in the comp was 16. The average playing handicap of the field was 15....that does not seem disproportional to me.

So, whilst it is probably fair to say that players who have poorly developed records will have an index that is perhaps not reflective of their ability I do not see in practice any evidence that the WHS is giving golfers noticeably higher handicaps and therefore an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. I remember that when the first WHS Indexes were issued about 50% of our members had indexes within 1 shot either way of their current Congu Handicap, 30% had indexes that were lower by more than 1 shot and 20% had indexes higher by more than 1 shot. Again, hardly firm evidence that the WHS allocated higher handicaps than necessary.

To restrict a player from competing off his handicap, gained fairly under the rules of the system, is fundamentally unfair. If you believe that the system is failing, don't punish the players, lobby effectively for change.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff Nick! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 7, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			I am to some extent. What is happening at you club is not happening at ours, a quick run through of our  comps since July 2020 and the highest handicap of a winner is 21.6.

Why the limit to 26 in a divisional comp?  I cannot understand why they do not simply change the divisions. 

We pay out prize money according to the number of players in each division so it is not as if they are taking away the prize money for players with better handicap.

When handicaps went to 54, several years ago, we had a bit of an out cry because Open comp entry was often limited to 28.
		
Click to expand...

Just to confirm - this is not my club who have done this 

We have removed all restrictions over the past 18 months

For example this Friday I will be giving someone 22 shots - previously it was a max of 18 , last year I would have only given in 9 but his HC went up a lot because he didn’t have 20 rounds in 

We have divisions in medals and Stableford etc - have done for years 

But we also have a number of board comps where there are no divisions 

the winners so far are people who haven’t have 20 rounds on the system and whose HC went up ( a lot ) due to WHS


----------



## IanM (Jul 7, 2021)

Poor chap.  Fancy having to play 14 holes with only one shot!     The Authorities need to do more to encourage folk to take up the game!


----------



## rulefan (Jul 7, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			Whilst I'd say that looking at our results this summer the majority of winners are of higher handicaps, it is equally true that lower handicappers have been "in contention" and may only be a small handful of strokes away. The simple fact of the matter is though that there are far more members with handicaps of 16-24 (52%)than there are 0-15 (28%) so statistically its is likely that a higher handicap will win or place in any given competition.

I wonder how many clubs who are complaining about higher handicaps winning things have actually bothered to look deeply into the issue and determine the relative make-up handicap wise of the competition fields. If they have merely looked at the winners it may not be representational of the wider picture...really they would need to look at say the top 10 places to get a view of what is really happening....if these places are always dominated by higher handicappers then yes, there may well be an issue...bit without knowing the spread of handicaps in a field it is not possible to simply look at a result and say that an "out of proportion" number of higher handicaps are winning things.
		
Click to expand...

That is exactly what was found in studies by the Scottish Golf, the USGA and the then EGU some years ago.

_When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it can be seen that all handicap categories win in reasonable proportion to their entry i.e. Category 1 and Category 3 players typically comprise 8% and 40% of a club competition and in a ‘single class’ competition win 10% and 38% of the time._


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 9, 2021)

I've just given a guy an initial handicap index of 51.2, which gives him a course handicap of 60 off our whites. Let us hope his 3 scores are a true reflection of his ability, and he doesn't try practice a bit before submitting more acceptable scores for handicap. Otherwise, if he can shoot 100 in a competition, that will be a nett 43 (27 under par), or 63 points. Crikey


----------



## Orikoru (Jul 9, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			I've just given a guy an initial handicap index of 51.2, which gives him a course handicap of 60 off our whites. Let us hope his 3 scores are a true reflection of his ability, and he doesn't try practice a bit before submitting more acceptable scores for handicap. Otherwise, if he can shoot 100 in a competition, that will be a nett 43 (27 under par), or 63 points. Crikey
		
Click to expand...

Christ. Even a couple of a sessions on the driving range will have shooting 46 points off of that. I still think the upper handicap limit should be 36.


----------



## wjemather (Jul 9, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Christ. Even a couple of a sessions on the driving range will have shooting 46 points off of that. I still think the upper handicap limit should be 36.
		
Click to expand...

Some people simply need more strokes than that. We have one member with an index in the mid-40s with over 70 scores on their record. Even with the best will in the world, they won't be breaking 100 (they haven't broken 110 - adjusted gross - in the past 4 years).


----------



## Orikoru (Jul 9, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Some people simply need more strokes than that. We have one member with an index in the mid-40s with over 70 scores on their record. Even with the best will in the world, they won't be breaking 100 (they haven't broken 110 - adjusted gross - in the past 4 years).
		
Click to expand...

Surely this was always the case when the limit was 28? Two shots a hole is plenty. Personally I didn't even join a golf club until I felt I could play to a 28 (the limit at the time). The problem is most people who start golf and play enough to join a club improve quite quickly, so anyone given a handicap in the 50s is bound to have some absolutely stonking scores as they rapidly get better at the game.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 9, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Some people simply need more strokes than that. We have one member with an index in the mid-40s with over 70 scores on their record. Even with the best will in the world, they won't be breaking 100 (they haven't broken 110 - adjusted gross - in the past 4 years).
		
Click to expand...

If a player has an extensive playing record, and a sky high handicap, I cannot begrudge that. I guess the debate is more to do with potential pace of play. However, it makes me incredibly nervous when a player gets a sky high handicap on the back of their first 3 scorecards. The resulting index is a measly 2 shots below the index (score differential) from their best round of 3. It is not inconceivable they could go out for a 4th/5th/6th round, and absolutely smash their best round (even worse, if their 4th and 5th rounds were poor, and they waited to play a blinding 6th round, their Index would be 2 higher than their initial one).


----------



## wjemather (Jul 9, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Surely this was always the case when the limit was 28? Two shots a hole is plenty. Personally I didn't even join a golf club until I felt I could play to a 28 (the limit at the time). The problem is most people who start golf and play enough to join a club improve quite quickly, so anyone given a handicap in the 50s is bound to have some absolutely stonking scores as they rapidly get better at the game.
		
Click to expand...

As I say, 2 strokes per hole is not enough for some. That is the reality, especially for many older players who just cannot hit the ball very far (and are only going to get shorter).

We should not begrudge people improving and posting good scores; the handicap system will make adjustments accordingly; and WHS does this extremely quickly for those with few scores (UHS did not, without manual intervention).


----------



## Beedee (Jul 9, 2021)

wjemather said:



			As I say, 2 strokes per hole is not enough for some. That is the reality, especially for many older players who just cannot hit the ball very far (and are only going to get shorter).

We should not begrudge people improving and posting good scores; the handicap system will make adjustments accordingly; and WHS does this extremely quickly for those with few scores (UHS did not, without manual intervention).
		
Click to expand...

Maybe the powers that be should have gone with a starting limit of 28 or 36 for new handicaps, but once you reach your 20 cards it can increase to whatever it needs to be?  That would give the field some protection from new improvers, but also give some allowance for the regular but declining player.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 9, 2021)

Beedee said:



			Maybe the powers that be should have gone with a starting limit of 28 or 36 for new handicaps, but once you reach your 20 cards it can increase to whatever it needs to be?  That would give the field some protection from new improvers, but also give some allowance for the regular but declining player.
		
Click to expand...

I sensible approach. I actually e-mailed them a similar suggestion. Basically, depending on what you initial raw handicap index is (based on the same number of best rounds used depending on your total number of rounds), you take 1 off the index if the initial index is 1-5, 2 off if 6-10, 3 off if 11-15, etc up until taking 10 off if Index over 45. These reductions stay in place until a player has 11 rounds on their record, at which point they are halved. Once the player has 20 rounds, those reductions are removed completely. I think something like that would obviously dampen any advantage beginners with a limited playing history would have.


----------



## rulefan (Jul 9, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			I sensible approach. I actually e-mailed them a similar suggestion. Basically, depending on what you initial raw handicap index is (based on the same number of best rounds used depending on your total number of rounds), you take 1 off the index if the initial index is 1-5, 2 off if 6-10, 3 off if 11-15, etc up until taking 10 off if Index over 45. These reductions stay in place until a player has 11 rounds on their record, at which point they are halved. Once the player has 20 rounds, those reductions are removed completely. I think something like that would obviously dampen any advantage beginners with a limited playing history would have.
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't table 5.2a do that?


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 9, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Doesn't table 5.2a do that?
		
Click to expand...

No (and I am sure you have asked me that before when the subject came up)

Table 5.2a makes some downward adjustments (-2.0 when 3 scores in, -1.0 when 4 in and -1.0 when 6 in). However, it does nothing to protect the field for those with higher initial indices.

For example, imagine Golfer A happened to be very good, handed in 3 scores with their best Score Differential of 2.0. Their Initial Index would then be 0.0. It is not inconceivable they could still go out and shoot a better 4th round, although it is going to be very difficult for them to beat their initial handicap even if they play well.

Golfer B has a best score differential of 52.0. They still get the -2.0 applied to them, so their initial Index is 50.0. It is probably not going to take much improvement for them to go out and play a round, smashing their initial handicap.

Imagine Golfer A and B start playing competitions after getting their handicaps. Which of those 2 golfers are more likely to be able to shoot 40+, 50+ (and God forbid 60+) points? My money is on Golfer B. Therefore, my rough proposal was to simply dampen that effect, and apply different downwards adjustments depending on both the raw Index and number of rounds played.


----------



## rulefan (Jul 9, 2021)

The note to 5.2 is what handicap committees are for 

Do your markers not report back with comments?


----------



## jim8flog (Jul 9, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Surely this was always the case when the limit was 28? Two shots a hole is plenty. Personally I didn't even join a golf club until I felt I could play to a 28 (the limit at the time). The problem is most people who start golf and play enough to join a club improve quite quickly, so anyone given a handicap in the 50s is bound to have some absolutely stonking scores as they rapidly get better at the game.
		
Click to expand...

 I know I have said this before when 54 handicaps first came several years ago we reviewed all players over 27.4. We used the same logic as we would to a newly handicapped player i.e. all players were given a new handicap based upon their best score in the previous 12 months.

The player who went up the most was given a handicap of 39. He regularly plays in lots of comps and the only time he ever won anything was the very first time he played with his new handicap. His current H.I. is 38.5.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 9, 2021)

rulefan said:



			The note to 5.2 is what handicap committees are for 

Do your markers not report back with comments?
		
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point.

New players hand in 3 cards, signed by a marker. Not once does a marker write me a story discussing the players ability based on their subjective opinion. Nor, do I contact every marker and ask them about the player's ability. Does your club do this? The player simply hands in those 3 scores, and they are awarded a handicap based on the WHS calculations.

The note under the table specifically says "Based on any additional evidence about a player's demonstrated ability, a Handicap Committee may modify a player's initial Handicap Index upward or downward". Clearly, we are discussing a situation where there is NO additional evidence beyond those 3 cards.

So, the player could then enter a competition and shoot a ridiculously good score. Now, you could say the Committee could then make a further adjustment to their handicap (as the Seniors section have been begging me to do with the winner of their latest comp). However, 1) the damage has been done as they've already destroyed the field and 2) there is argument not to make any additional adjustments if that good score has also gone directly into their scoring record anyway, as it should give them a good cut anyway.


----------



## rulefan (Jul 9, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Does your club do this?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, when appropriate. Particularly when they are young, having regular lessons or returning to play. Members acting as markers know they are expected to tell a committee member or the pro if the player seems to have a better protentional than their score suggests.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 9, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Yes, when appropriate. Particularly when they are young, having regular lessons or returning to play. Members acting as markers know they are expected to tell a committee member or the pro if the player seems to have a better protentional than their score suggests.
		
Click to expand...

So, you are happy adjusting handicaps based on the subjective opinion of others. Interesting. I'd be shocked if many markers even bother providing committee that additional information. I mean, it is not uncommon for a marker to remember one or 2 good shots and generalise the player by saying "they could have done much better, hit some good shots out there". Very rare they say "they were lucky, won't shoot a round that low for a long long time". So, if Committee were to take commentary from a marker, they'd probably dock every new member additional shots.

Our Committee do not have time contacting new members, and the people they know, to try and build up a story on what their golfing potential may be. They hand in 3 scores, they get a handicap. We spend enough time reviewing all the general scores that keep coming in from all members, chasing No Returned Cards, etc.

I am reluctant to make any adjustments to a players handicap, calculated by WHS, unless it appears a player is avoiding acceptable rounds, but doing very very well in competitions like match play. Furthermore, it does not matter if a player is young (potentially ageist) or having lessons, because they've ultimately handed in 3 likely recent cards (so they should take those lessons into account). Once they get a handicap, they may start having lessons. But, surely you do not expect the Committee to keep in regular contact with all members, especially new ones, just to find out they are having lessons, and if so maybe dock them a few more shots?

I seriously doubt many club committees do this. Instead, we largely rely on the WHS calculation. IF Committees do need to make further adjustments, then it essentially confirms what we have been discussing. That the WHS calculation itself is not fit for purpose for new golfers.

I wonder if England Golf will contact markers and asked for their opinions on the players ability and history when this nomad handicap scheme is in full swing?


----------



## rulefan (Jul 9, 2021)

"Based on any additional evidence about a player's demonstrated ability, a Handicap Committee may modify a player's initial Handicap Index upward or downward".
		
Click to expand...

 I said -_ Yes, when appropriate. Particularly when they are young, having regular lessons or returning to play._
In addition we would speak to the player and also the pro if they are having lessons. On occasion we will contact a previous club.

But what did you do under CONGU rules?


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 9, 2021)

rulefan said:



			I said -_ Yes, when appropriate. Particularly when they are young, having regular lessons or returning to play._
In addition we would speak to the player and also the pro if they are having lessons. On occasion we will contact a previous club.

But what did you do under CONGU rules?
		
Click to expand...

I never said Congu dealt with the situation well. It has always been a problem, but it is not impossible to have a technical solution


----------



## jim8flog (Jul 10, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Yes, when appropriate. Particularly when they are young, having regular lessons or returning to play. Members acting as markers know they are expected to tell a committee member or the pro if the player seems to have a better protentional than their score suggests.
		
Click to expand...

 In my time on the handicap committee I have loads of people ask me to check such and such a players handicap based upon one good score. I have never decreased a player players handicap once.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jul 10, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			So, you are happy adjusting handicaps based on the subjective opinion of others. Interesting. I'd be shocked if many markers even bother providing committee that additional information. I mean, it is not uncommon for a marker to remember one or 2 good shots and generalise the player by saying "they could have done much better, hit some good shots out there". Very rare they say "they were lucky, won't shoot a round that low for a long long time". So, if Committee were to take commentary from a marker, they'd probably dock every new member additional shots.

Our Committee do not have time contacting new members, and the people they know, to try and build up a story on what their golfing potential may be. They hand in 3 scores, they get a handicap. We spend enough time reviewing all the general scores that keep coming in from all members, chasing No Returned Cards, etc.

I am reluctant to make any adjustments to a players handicap, calculated by WHS, unless it appears a player is avoiding acceptable rounds, but doing very very well in competitions like match play. Furthermore, it does not matter if a player is young (potentially ageist) or having lessons, because they've ultimately handed in 3 likely recent cards (so they should take those lessons into account). Once they get a handicap, they may start having lessons. But, surely you do not expect the Committee to keep in regular contact with all members, especially new ones, just to find out they are having lessons, and if so maybe dock them a few more shots?

I seriously doubt many club committees do this. Instead, we largely rely on the WHS calculation. IF Committees do need to make further adjustments, then it essentially confirms what we have been discussing. That the WHS calculation itself is not fit for purpose for new golfers.

I wonder if England Golf will contact markers and asked for their opinions on the players ability and history when this nomad handicap scheme is in full swing?
		
Click to expand...


As a new entrant in Club membership, every time I have played a round in competition, or as a general play round with established members, I have always had the comment "you are better than your handicap".  However, I know have 8 rounds in,so two counting, and the counting rounds are round 2 and round 8, within 0.5 of a shot of each other.  Subjective opinion isn't always reliable!  I might get a silly low nett score today, but if I do, it'd be the best of my last 8 rounds. 

The whole point of a handicap competition is whether you can play better than you ever have before so it is firstly a competition with yourself.  The competition with others element is whether your _better _is better than someone else's _better _ as defined by the handicap rules whatever they may be.  And whatever they are is always prone to discussion and debate.  The issue as I have seen is that so many have got used over many years to one handicap system, that they now compare the new handicap system to that.  Whish isn't helpful as they are simply different.


----------



## rulefan (Jul 10, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			In my time on the handicap committee I have loads of people ask me to check such and such a players handicap based upon one good score. I have never decreased a player players handicap once.
		
Click to expand...

Given that CONGU said not to, why would anyone?


----------



## Depreston (Jul 12, 2021)

If you had a handicap index that is a single figure say 9.2
but you haven’t played a round without less than 10 shots 

Would you categorise yourself as a single figure golfer


----------



## sweaty sock (Jul 12, 2021)

Yep, handicap index is the measure.  We've got guys at my club claiming HI9.9 is single figures!


----------



## Orikoru (Jul 12, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Yep, handicap index is the measure.  We've got guys at my club claiming HI9.9 is single figures!
		
Click to expand...

Well they're wrong, because that makes 10 in my book? I would say you're single figure if 9.4 or lower index.


----------



## jim8flog (Jul 12, 2021)

Depreston said:



			If you had a handicap index that is a single figure say 9.2
but you haven’t played a round without less than 10 shots

Would you categorise yourself as a single figure golfer
		
Click to expand...

On any course where the slope rating is 113 a players H.I. = their CH, so 9.4 or better is single figure.


A player could be considered single figure on one course but not another course depending on the slope rating.


----------



## sweaty sock (Jul 14, 2021)

After a pretty normal start to the season, the last few weeks our place is getting absolutely decimated.  40 points is lucky to get a top ten....  True, conditions have been good but I've never seen scores like this on such a regular basis....  hopefully it calms down soon because the volatility in handicaps is really making me lose interest in both my and others handicaps!


----------



## jim8flog (Jul 15, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			After a pretty normal start to the season, the last few weeks our place is getting absolutely decimated.  40 points is lucky to get a top ten....  True, conditions have been good but I've never seen scores like this on such a regular basis....  hopefully it calms down soon because the volatility in handicaps is really making me lose interest in both my and others handicaps!
		
Click to expand...

 I can remember a time on our course (when the handicap limit to play was 24) you had to score in the low net 60s to win in medals. We only had 2 comps a month in those days, one you played either Saturday or Sunday (same comp and you could only play one of the days) and one midweek. Supplementary Scores did not exist. Now we have plenty of opportunity to put in scores it is only the handicap protecting bandits that one has to worry about and with the WHS it is very hard to protect your handicap and win.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jul 15, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			After a pretty normal start to the season, the last few weeks our place is getting absolutely decimated.  40 points is lucky to get a top ten....  True, conditions have been good but I've never seen scores like this on such a regular basis....  hopefully it calms down soon because the volatility in handicaps is really making me lose interest in both my and others handicaps!
		
Click to expand...

Are these high scores generally people new to golf with high initial handicaps, or a mixed spread of new and experienced golfers with an extensive scoring history?


----------



## JonnyGutteridge (Jul 15, 2021)

15 out of the top 20 in our Stableford at the weekend were <=10 handicap.
50% of the field had a handicap of <=10 (110 entrants)

11 out of the top 20 were <=5 handicap.
30 out of 110 entrants had <=5 handicap.

It seems low handicappers were ridiculously over represented at the top of the leaderboard. Slightly damp conditions, slower/softish greens, less roll on the fairways; plays into hands of the low guys?

Position / Pts / Handicap
1st    39    (4)
2nd    38    (0)
3rd    38    (4)
4th    37    (6)
5th    36    (2)
6th    35    (3)
7th    35    (25)
8th    35    (-1)
9th    35    (12)
10th    35    (13)
11th    34    (1)
12th    34    (7)
13th    34    (3)
14th    34    (8)
15th    34    (11)
16th    34    (10)
17th    34    (3)
18th    33    (4)
19th    33    (16)
20th    33    (2)


----------



## IainP (Jul 15, 2021)

Depreston said:



			If you had a handicap index that is a single figure say 9.2
but you haven’t played a round without less than 10 shots

Would you categorise yourself as a single figure golfer
		
Click to expand...

Possibly depends on the age/length of time in the game of the person. I'd go for when you receive 9 shots or fewer on the course. But in a short while I expect a HI of 9.4 or lower will be the bar.
It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things 🙃


----------



## davidy233 (Jul 15, 2021)

Everyone I've seen moan about WHS are the same people who would have moaned about giving full handicap in a match before it came in - invariably 4/5 to 9 handicappers who think they are good at golf (they aren't really - just better than hackers)- the good golfers at my place (scratch to plus figures) don't care because about your handicap because they know they can beat someone who will make mistakes


----------



## Orikoru (Jul 20, 2021)

Saw this yesterday and had to laugh. 




Course record and came 2nd.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 1, 2021)

After joining a new club last week, played 3 rounds and submitted scores for handicap. Pre registered on howdidido, entered score on howdidido and submitted physical signed cards in relevant box at club.

However, it seems that someone at club has picked up the physical cards and entered my scores again in the system, thus duplicating them. Furthermore, they have also entered every other players score onto the system (played in 3 balls each time, so the scores for the other 2 players), despite none of them pre registering or intending to submit score.

Seems it is going to take a while for the system to start working seamlessly, my new club is certainly one with a great reputation, one in which I've no doubt is run very well.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Aug 1, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			After joining a new club last week, played 3 rounds and submitted scores for handicap. Pre registered on howdidido, entered score on howdidido and submitted physical signed cards in relevant box at club.

However, it seems that someone at club has picked up the physical cards and entered my scores again in the system, thus duplicating them. Furthermore, they have also entered every other players score onto the system (played in 3 balls each time, so the scores for the other 2 players), despite none of them pre registering or intending to submit score.

Seems it is going to take a while for the system to start working seamlessly, my new club is certainly one with a great reputation, one in which I've no doubt is run very well.
		
Click to expand...


At our club, I was not allowed to enter my own scores for my first three cards to handicap at the back end of last year.  They had to be submitted as actual scorecards to the club to get me set up (we use IG) and my CDH number etc.  Not even sure that a formal "pre registration" for these first three cards is needed, even though I did so.


----------



## IanM (Aug 1, 2021)

Back to normal pre covid card marking yesterday.   

I keyed my score into the terminal in the clubhouse,  (Masterscoreboard) and it was on the Wales Golf portal immediately.    BUT not on the Master Scoreboard mobile app ..seems odd!

However,  handicap index is stable and logical provided you don't start trying to unravel the reasoning 😁


----------



## rosecott (Aug 1, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			At our club, I was not allowed to enter my own scores for my first three cards to handicap at the back end of last year.  They had to be submitted as actual scorecards to the club to get me set up (we use IG) and my CDH number etc.  Not even sure that a formal "pre registration" for these first three cards is needed, even though I did so.
		
Click to expand...

There is no requirement for players to pre-register prior to playing a round that is used to determine the Initial Handicap.


----------



## rulefan (Aug 1, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			At our club, I was not allowed to enter my own scores for my first three cards to handicap at the back end of last year.  They had to be submitted as actual scorecards to the club to get me set up (we use IG) and my CDH number etc.  Not even sure that a formal "pre registration" for these first three cards is needed, even though I did so.
		
Click to expand...

Was this pre or post WHS transition?


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Aug 1, 2021)

Post WHS. I’ve never had a CONGU handicap. My three cards all went under WHS.


----------



## IanM (Aug 2, 2021)

... first thing this morning I see my HI had dropped another 0.1 from the initial reduction after Saturday's comp.   (PCC was 0)   Any ideas? 

The start sheet at Burnham for the Open on Wednesday already shows this lower HI too.... does it get a feed from IG?

My "8 from 20" are all within 3 shots of each other.  That surprises, but encourages me!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 2, 2021)

IanM said:



			.
My "8 from 20" are all within 3 shots of each other.  That surprises, but encourages me!  

Click to expand...

This could almost be a thread. 6 of my 8 are within a shot of each other. My 7th is 2 shots worse than my best, my worst is a rogue 4 shots away, I need to get rid of that one .

In our cases our HI is most definitely accurate, a very even line on a graph .

The next question, how do we break that ceiling in order to go lower? Have we plateaued? Interesting stuff.


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 2, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			This could almost be a thread. 6 of my 8 are within a shot of each other. My 7th is 2 shots worse than my best, my worst is a rogue 4 shots away, I need to get rid of that one .

In our cases our HI is most definitely accurate, a very even line on a graph .

The next question, how do we break that ceiling in order to go lower? Have we plateaued? Interesting stuff.
		
Click to expand...

My top 8 are between 81 and 90. I have an 87 that's not in the top 8 though.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Aug 2, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			This could almost be a thread. 6 of my 8 are within a shot of each other. My 7th is 2 shots worse than my best, my worst is a rogue 4 shots away, I need to get rid of that one .

In our cases our HI is most definitely accurate, a very even line on a graph .

The next question, how do we break that ceiling in order to go lower? Have we plateaued? Interesting stuff.
		
Click to expand...

I'm finding exactly the same too.  At the moment I've three rounds counting from nine, and the spread of the score differential for those three is 0.5!  My next two which don't count are only a further 0.4, so I have five rounds from nine within a shot.

I am having lessons to try and break that trend.  Generally, it gets worse before it gets better.  Though I am finding that if it's a social, no card, round I don't concentrate as well, and so don't play as well.


----------



## HeftyHacker (Aug 2, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			I'm finding exactly the same too.  At the moment I've three rounds counting from nine, and the spread of the score differential for those three is 0.5!  My next two which don't count are only a further 0.4, so I have five rounds from nine within a shot.

I am having lessons to try and break that trend.  Generally, it gets worse before it gets better.  Though I am finding that if it's a social, no card, round I don't concentrate as well, and so don't play as well.
		
Click to expand...

There's a definite downward trend in my handicap but it is starting to plateau at a level that feels about right. However, I've found my best rounds have been outside of comps, whether its the lack of perceived pressure I don't know. Some of my competition rounds now stick out like a sore thumb on the graph.

I'm currently on 10 cards so need another 2 to make it the average of my best four. Unless I play a blinder I would expect it to go up by a shot or two at that point. But given my next two scores will be a club champs round with the course set up pretty difficult, and an Open at an away course, I don't think they'll end up as counting scores.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 2, 2021)

Best 8 are all within 2 shots, only 1.2 if we count nett differential...


----------



## Imurg (Aug 2, 2021)

My counting nett diffs vary from 2.3 to 10.5...
No wonder my index is up and down like a yo-yo...


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Aug 2, 2021)

Mine vary between -1.2 and 5.3, consistently inconsistent


----------



## Junior (Aug 2, 2021)

davidy233 said:



			Everyone I've seen moan about WHS are the same people who would have moaned about giving full handicap in a match before it came in - invariably 4/5 to 9 handicappers who think they are good at golf (they aren't really - just better than hackers)- the good golfers at my place (scratch to plus figures) don't care because about your handicap because they know they can beat someone who will make mistakes
		
Click to expand...

Hi there , I bounce between 5 and 6 handicap so am in the bracket you mention.  I felt compelled to reply as I didn't complain about the old system, but I want to champion the cause of the handicap bracket I'm in.    I'm hoping the new system catches up with people's handicaps quickly as i've resigned to the fact I play to try and beat my handicap in competitions this year as I don't stand a chance of winning.  

You see, this season,  I'd have had to shoot at least 2  under par gross to have won any of the competitions I have entered.  That's never going to happen.  It happened again this weekend when guy off 30 had 47 points in our Captains day.  In addition to that, I don't have any chance of winning lowest gross as we have quite a few plus handicaps who compete for that.   So I'm just hoping that this system levels out people's handicaps quickly so I can play with a faint hope that once more scores of 4/5 under start to win again.  

I enjoy your course pics BTW so keep them coming !


----------



## DRW (Aug 2, 2021)

I'm not noticing crazy silly scores at any of the clubs I belong to(that I have noticed, dont think I remember one being better than say 43ish normally winning is around 41 or lower, depending on club). 

Are these crazy scores being done by the 'rush of new members/improving golfers'  or being won by old members who had big revisions to their handicap due WHS introduction/general play rounds since (ie. both of these things almost happened at once) ?

[as an aside also aware than the current weather will tend to kick out silly scores, as the conditions make the course alot easier for some people]


----------



## DRW (Aug 2, 2021)

For me I have gone from 6.6 to 10.4 this year.

My scoring rounds are now from 8.5 to 13.9 (and non scoring from 14.2 to 27.1, 8 pickups that round).

You lot are more consistent than me


----------



## IanM (Aug 2, 2021)

DRW said:



			For me I have gone from 6.6 to 10.4 this year.
		
Click to expand...

Don't worry, the Hard Cap will kick in soon!


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 2, 2021)

Junior said:



			Hi there , I bounce between 5 and 6 handicap so am in the bracket you mention.  I felt compelled to reply as I didn't complain about the old system, but I want to champion the cause of the handicap bracket I'm in.    I'm hoping the new system catches up with people's handicaps quickly as i've resigned to the fact I play to try and beat my handicap in competitions this year as I don't stand a chance of winning. 

You see, this season,  I'd have had to shoot at least 2  under par gross to have won any of the competitions I have entered.  That's never going to happen.  It happened again this weekend when guy off 30 had 47 points in our Captains day.  In addition to that, I don't have any chance of winning lowest gross as we have quite a few plus handicaps who compete for that.   So I'm just hoping that this system levels out people's handicaps quickly so I can play with a faint hope that once more scores of 4/5 under start to win again. 

I enjoy your course pics BTW so keep them coming !
		
Click to expand...

We were seeing a similar issue during the first few months of the season. However, as the HC's seem to have levelled out a bit, we're now seeing more single figure golfers competing towards the top of the board. 
Early in the season you had to shoot 63-64 (Par 72) to win. This has gradually risen to 67-68 now. 
Captain's Day was won with 46 points in June. President's day was won with 41 points last week.
Some dodgy bandit won the mid-week medal with a 68 playing off 10 last week. That wouldn't have been top 20 2 months ago.

Give it another month and see where the scores are. I'd be surprised if it didn't start levelling off pretty soon at your place.

Anyway, just to say... I love the new system. Best season I've had in a decade!!!!!


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 2, 2021)

My best round in ages at the weekend, replacing an 8.6 diff with a 5.1 (Adjusted Gross of 78). My best 8 range from this 5.1 up to 9.9. HI of 7.9.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 2, 2021)

My best 8 vary from 4.8 to 10.3. Index is 8.6

Won my first comp in 9 years a couple of weeks ago with a 4 over par gross 74 for 42 points.....best gross score I've shot in the last 5 years!!!

Index has been on a downward trend for the last year now after slowly rising from an all time low of 6.3 under the old scheme in 2010 to 14 in the spring of 2020.


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 2, 2021)

Random golf irritations has had a few posts on this matter. We haven’t had huge scores as it’s been the domain of the low long hitters and the high handicappers. But scores have not gone crazy it’s just a case of fields dropping off as certain people realise they cannot compete. Also the twos is getting 2nd thoughts when you see a load scratchers and low cat 1s in the field ( they have a least 3 opportunities ) ( I have on occasions made 2 , but these guys are looking at making 2 or 3 so the pot has shrunk) . Is the whs impacting, well yes I am going up fast but then I have now stopped playing whilst the course is in its present state. Not going to blew cash on no tangible chance.
I am currently in the match play singles and pairs. So it will be interesting to see if I come up against one of the scratchers and whether I can push them . The pairs , I have a low cat 1 partner and he seems to have settled now having been a new member. 
Anyway the system is okay, I think it’s working but I think it’s undermined by the course set up and we will have guys with non representative indexes… and that’s the lows and the mids .. the lows will be posting disappointing results and the mids will be accused of being bandits, when they travel. 
I think I need to have a round around Ellesborough to see if I am anywhere near what I was when I left 8 years ago. I would have got 3 strokes around there then now I would get 15 so if I post anything around 3 I have maintained my ability which I think won’t be the case, but 15 ? I think I can get round in 10 over, and Ellesborough has a higher slope.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 2, 2021)

Junior said:



			Hi there , I bounce between 5 and 6 handicap so am in the bracket you mention.  I felt compelled to reply as I didn't complain about the old system, but I want to champion the cause of the handicap bracket I'm in.    I'm hoping the new system catches up with people's handicaps quickly as i've resigned to the fact I play to try and beat my handicap in competitions this year as I don't stand a chance of winning. 

You see, this season,  I'd have had to shoot at least 2  under par gross to have won any of the competitions I have entered.  That's never going to happen.  It happened again this weekend when guy off 30 had 47 points in our Captains day.  In addition to that, I don't have any chance of winning lowest gross as we have quite a few plus handicaps who compete for that.   So I'm just hoping that this system levels out people's handicaps quickly so I can play with a faint hope that once more scores of 4/5 under start to win again. 

I enjoy your course pics BTW so keep them coming !
		
Click to expand...

I have now resigned myself to know that I won’t win a HC comp again , we only have one scratch comp as well so will give myself a chance with that - also won’t bother with any of the HC and Team KO’s plus the winter league stuff 

Even scoring 2 under gross isn’t good enough to win anything now - I’ll use the comps just so I can have a round of golf and as you say hope that the system levels things out but I’m not very hopeful


----------



## HampshireHog (Aug 2, 2021)

My counting 8 differentials have a big swing -2.4 to 10.7.

4 more rounds until the low one drops out.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 2, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I have now resigned myself to know that I won’t win a HC comp again , we only have one scratch comp as well so will give myself a chance with that - also won’t bother with any of the HC and Team KO’s plus the winter league stuff

Even scoring 2 under gross isn’t good enough to win anything now - I’ll use the comps just so I can have a round of golf and as you say hope that the system levels things out but I’m not very hopeful
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold much hope in this mythical "handicaps levelling off". Firstly, it doesn't apply to most of the regular players anyway, as they have likely had a full scoring history on their WHS record, as it used all their qualifying scores since Jan 2018. So, levelling off does not really apply to most players.

There are newish members now with very few scores on their playing record. Not only that, many of them will improve. So, yes, hopefully over time their handicaps will level off.

However, there will always be new people to the game, and so there will always be players with few scores on their record. The system does very little to protect the field against players who have got very few scores on their handicap record, especially those that have just submitted 3 cards and got their first handicap. Perhaps the issue is worse now, due to the large influx of new players after lockdown last year. So, at best, hopefully in the future there will be a smaller number of new members to worry about.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 2, 2021)

IanM said:



			.

The start sheet at Burnham for the Open on Wednesday already shows this lower HI too.... does it get a feed from IG?
		
Click to expand...

With IG handicaps Indexes are updated automatically for all entrants.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 2, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I have now resigned myself to know that I won’t win a HC comp again , we only have one scratch comp as well so will give myself a chance with that - also won’t bother with any of the HC and Team KO’s plus the winter league stuff

Even scoring 2 under gross isn’t good enough to win anything now - I’ll use the comps just so I can have a round of golf and as you say hope that the system levels things out but I’m not very hopeful
		
Click to expand...

I presume you are talking a bout trophy comps where all handicaps get lumped together.

We play our normal comps in Divisions. I have on two this year one with 2 under nett and the other 3,  one in Div 1 seniors up to 16CH handicap and the other in Div 2 club 10-16CH.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Aug 2, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			I presume you are talking a bout trophy comps where all handicaps get lumped together.

We play our normal comps in Divisions. I have on two this year one with 2 under nett and the other 3,  one in Div 1 seniors up to 16CH handicap and the other in Div 2 club 10-16CH.
		
Click to expand...

Nope - including the divisions as well , I was level gross in the last medal , winner on div 1 was a 12 handicap who used to be off 6 before Whs - he was 4 over and won with a net 63


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 2, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Nope - including the divisions as well , I was level gross in the last medal , winner on div 1 was a 12 handicap who used to be off 6 before Whs - he was 4 over and won with a net 63
		
Click to expand...

Long before the WHS was even being considered the lowest handicap player at our club once told me he only entered Saturday comps for the 2s pot and the best gross prize. He knew he was never going to win the nett prize.


----------



## Junior (Aug 2, 2021)

DRW said:



			I'm not noticing crazy silly scores at any of the clubs I belong to(that I have noticed, dont think I remember one being better than say 43ish normally winning is around 41 or lower, depending on club).

Are these crazy scores being done by the 'rush of new members/improving golfers'  or being won by old members who had big revisions to their handicap due WHS introduction/general play rounds since (ie. both of these things almost happened at once) ?

[as an aside also aware than the current weather will tend to kick out silly scores, as the conditions make the course alot easier for some people]
		
Click to expand...

A combination of new members and members who didn't have 20 cards.  We had quite a few of the latter who's handicaps went from circa 18/20 to mid 20's.  As our course rating is quite high, a hi of 24 means they get 26 shots.  So a lot of our member gained 5+ shots overnight.  I played a lovely old fella in a knockout who was off 20, and at the start of the new season was off 27.  He came top 5 in the first 3 comps of the year and is now back down to where he wanted to be. 

I'll add, Ive come to like the new system in that it provides a more 'real time' handicap.  I've never played as many qualifiers as I have this year.  I just wish a lot of other players would do the same.


----------



## Junior (Aug 2, 2021)

bluewolf said:



			We were seeing a similar issue during the first few months of the season. However, as the HC's seem to have levelled out a bit, we're now seeing more single figure golfers competing towards the top of the board.
Early in the season you had to shoot 63-64 (Par 72) to win. This has gradually risen to 67-68 now.
Captain's Day was won with 46 points in June. President's day was won with 41 points last week.
Some dodgy bandit won the mid-week medal with a 68 playing off 10 last week. That wouldn't have been top 20 2 months ago.

Give it another month and see where the scores are. I'd be surprised if it didn't start levelling off pretty soon at your place.

Anyway, just to say... I love the new system. Best season I've had in a decade!!!!! 

Click to expand...

I've heard there's a lot of complaints about handicaps in the knockouts at your place too  

Let's sort a knock soon, it's been too long!


----------



## bluewolf (Aug 2, 2021)

Junior said:



			I've heard there's a lot of complaints about handicaps in the knockouts at your place too  

Let's sort a knock soon, it's been too long!
		
Click to expand...

Well they’re certainly not talking about me bud. I’m down to 8 now and would probably be a bit lower if I wasn’t stuck playing all these matchplay games 😉😉😉

Definitely get a game soon bud. Open invite to the Costa Del BOL 👍


----------



## wjemather (Aug 3, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Nope - including the divisions as well , I was level gross in the last medal , winner on div 1 was a 12 handicap who used to be off 6 before Whs - he was 4 over and won with a net 63
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like a glaring outlier of a difference at WHS transition that should have been reviewed by your handicap committee. It's highly unlikely that old cat 1/2 players would show a difference of more than a couple of strokes without there being an issue with their record.


----------



## IanM (Aug 3, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Sounds like a glaring outlier of a difference at WHS transition that should have been reviewed by your handicap committee. It's highly unlikely that old cat 1/2 players would show a difference of more than a couple of strokes without there being an issue with their record.
		
Click to expand...

'ang on... us plebs we told not to question the wisdom of the celestial algorithms or a plague of leather jackets would be foisted upon our unworthy souls!!   

Serious head back on... isnt there a "cap" that should prevent such a jump?


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 3, 2021)

Theres a player at our club who plays in at least 3 rounds a week, they play in loads of away comps, proper golfaholic.  In the last 8 weeks, just in June and July, his handicap has been as high as 3 (at the start) and as low as plus 2.  Hes currently 2.... In one month!  3 would struggle to get in county events, +2 nearly got you into the british amatuer this year....

I reckon in years gone by that sort of 5 shot swing and back may have taken half a decade? Maybe more...

So to expect handicaps to settle down is a hopeless pipe dream I suspect...


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 3, 2021)

Oops I told a bit of a lie there, sorted it now...


----------



## wjemather (Aug 3, 2021)

IanM said:



			'ang on... us plebs we told not to question the wisdom of the celestial algorithms or a plague of leather jackets would be foisted upon our unworthy souls!!   

Serious head back on... isnt there a "cap" that should prevent such a jump?
		
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of questioning the algorithms or calculations, just the "scores" that are being used in them. We had a couple of people with scores on their record that belonged to someone else with a similar name, lots of people with "NR"s that were not supposed to have been transitioned (according to EG), missing scores that had not uploaded to CDH from our ISV (the ISV still claim that this was not possible!!), and many people with very few scores during the 3 year period that was used. It's this last group that demonstrated the biggest anomalies at transition. Handicap committees were supposed to review these things prior to transition (a simple report was provided to highlight handicap differences) - it's obvious that many did not.

The soft and hard caps only come into effect once the low index is set, for which there need to be 20 scores on a player's record.


----------



## IanM (Aug 3, 2021)

Oh gosh.

Line 1 : Satire

Line 2 : A question

Apologies if that wasn't sufficiently signposted.


In the example cited by "Sweaty"  - we have a bloke with a gazillion scores on record.  So why the 5 shot swing and the cap not coming into effect?


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 3, 2021)

Im sure it is, the cap is 5 shots though, and his lifts have been half speed for a few rounds.... its just he can replace his entire record in no time at all.  Im not sure of his lowest maybe +1.6? So soft cap at 1.4...


----------



## IanM (Aug 3, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			its just he can replace his entire record in no time at all.  .
		
Click to expand...

Hope I'll be doing same when I pack in work!


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 3, 2021)

IanM said:



			Hope I'll be doing same when I pack in work! 

Click to expand...

Whats also apparent is that good players have 'form' that most higher handicap players dont seem to have, so its very common for a stretch of good scores to appear in a short purple patch, so consequently, they drop off in quick succession, potentially meaning (relatively) big swings...

The player is first to admit his talent has neither improved nor regressed!


----------



## timd77 (Aug 14, 2021)

So far, I’ve only been putting comp scores in, but would like to start putting general scores in.

What’s the process for doing this if I use the England golf app? Do I still have to sign in at the pro shop? How do I get someone to ‘sign the card’ if it’s being done on the app?


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Aug 14, 2021)

timd77 said:



			So far, I’ve only been putting comp scores in, but would like to start putting general scores in.

What’s the process for doing this if I use the England golf app? Do I still have to sign in at the pro shop? How do I get someone to ‘sign the card’ if it’s being done on the app?
		
Click to expand...

You have to play with someone else who has a handicap as smeone has to witness and verify your score.

You register your intent to play on the England Golf App.  You'll need to do this at, or near the course.

You enter your scores on the app.

At the end of the round your playing partner will be asked, via the England Golf App, to confim your score.

You can also enter a photograph of the signed scorecard.

My club use IG, and you can do all this via the IG app insted of the England Golf app if you are playing at your home club.  I am not sure how robust the IG app verification from another player is; uploading the signed scorecard is, I assume, the verification in the IG case.

I think I've got that right.  I'm sure someone will be along rto tell us if I haven't.


----------



## 2blue (Aug 14, 2021)

wjemather said:



			It's not a matter of questioning the algorithms or calculations, just the "scores" that are being used in them. We had a couple of people with scores on their record that belonged to someone else with a similar name, lots of people with "NR"s that were not supposed to have been transitioned (according to EG), missing scores that had not uploaded to CDH from our ISV (the ISV still claim that this was not possible!!), and many people with very few scores during the 3 year period that was used. *It's this last group that demonstrated the biggest anomalies at transition. Handicap committees were supposed to review these things prior to transition (a simple report was provided to highlight handicap differences) - it's obvious that many did not.*

The soft and hard caps only come into effect once the low index is set, for which there need to be 20 scores on a player's record.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah.....  there's been a lot of negligence to blame.....  not the WHS, which we have found to be great progress we've waited a long time for....  a 'playing-field' leveler when going to other courses.
There's no real secret.....  just put lots of cards in & don't be 'precious' about your H/cap going up a bit as it's probably where you should be.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 14, 2021)

timd77 said:



			Just reading back through some of these, should an NR in a comp not be included in a comp? I NRd after 2 holes in my last comp, put the scorecard in for transparency, and was given a score of 127 and my hcp went up by 1. Assumed this was normal?
		
Click to expand...

You did the right thing by submitting your card, however...

For handicapping purposes, you should have completed the round (following an NR in a medal, you may play and score the remaining holes as if a Stableford using your Course Handicap). Additionally, if you didn't play more than 9 holes, your score is not acceptable for handicapping and as such, if it has been entered on your handicap record erroneously (i.e. with all zeros after the 2nd) it should be removed from your record.


----------



## timd77 (Aug 14, 2021)

wjemather said:



			You did the right thing by submitting your card, however...

For handicapping purposes, you should have completed the round (following an NR in a medal, you may play and score the remaining holes as if a Stableford using your Course Handicap). Additionally, if you didn't play more than 9 holes, your score is not acceptable for handicapping and as such, if it has been entered on your handicap record erroneously (i.e. with all zeros after the 2nd) it should be removed from your record.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, I didn’t know I should have properly completed the round. I didn’t want to affect my PPs rounds and so I carried on playing but didn’t put my own score down, picked up when on the green etc to keep play moving. Damn. It was strokeplay. I put a line through my card and wrote nr on it.

Should I contact the handicap secretary and let them know?


----------



## rulefan (Aug 14, 2021)

timd77 said:



			Ok, I didn’t know I should have properly completed the round. I didn’t want to affect my PPs rounds and so I carried on playing but didn’t put my own score down, picked up when on the green etc to keep play moving. Damn. It was strokeplay. I put a line through my card and wrote nr on it.

Should I contact the handicap secretary and let them know?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. They should remove the record.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 14, 2021)

timd77 said:



			Ok, I didn’t know I should have properly completed the round. I didn’t want to affect my PPs rounds and so I carried on playing but didn’t put my own score down, picked up when on the green etc to keep play moving. Damn. It was strokeplay. I put a line through my card and wrote nr on it.

Should I contact the handicap secretary and let them know?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, if you contact them, they should remove this score as you did not complete enough holes in accordance with the rules of handicapping.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 14, 2021)

timd77 said:



			Just reading back through some of these, should an NR in a comp not be included in a comp? I NRd after 2 holes in my last comp, put the scorecard in for transparency, and was given a score of 127 and my hcp went up by 1. Assumed this was normal?
		
Click to expand...

When you record NR on a hole it is recorded as a hole started but not finished and the hole is recorded for handicap as a nett double bogey i.e the point at which you score 0 points for the hole. With the WHS it is important to record actual scores (but NR is ok if it would be nett double bogey). If you do not start a hole it is recorded as NS.


----------



## timd77 (Aug 14, 2021)

Ok, thanks all, I’ll contact the handicap secretary. Glad I came on here today!


----------



## Voyager EMH (Aug 15, 2021)

If I shoot 4 over par 74 at my course (70.8/132), I achieve a differential of 2.7 which is exactly my HI at the moment.
No surprise then that the lowest of my best 8 is a 72 (diff = 1.0) and the highest is a 76 (diff = 4.5).
The next six scores that disappear from my 20 are not in my best 8, so the only way is down for the next few weeks.
Got the hang of it now, I feel.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 16, 2021)

A year ago my H/cap was 8.1 and I was struggling…under WHS it’s since drifted up to 10.3 and at my place that’s a CH of 11.  

Stableford Comp on Saturday saw me knocking it round in 8 over gross - and that was in large part because after a not great start (5 pts total for first four holes) I felt I was actually playing OK and PH of 10 gave me room to keep going and score a half decent number of points.  Off hcap of 8 I would not have been feeling that way.

In the end I scored 38pts and ended up 8th in a field of 146. With my H/I increasing from 8.1 to 10.3 under WHS I can suggest that WHS has worked for me.  

Also sees my H/I now reduced to 9.9 and that’s fine as still sees me with a CH of 11.  So still have the ‘comfort zone’ to consolidate my first round of half decent golf for three years.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 16, 2021)

Another benefit to WHS (sort of):

My previous club do not update the howdidido system after membership renewal at start of August (if they do, they normally wait until Xmas or the new year to clear out members who have not rejoined). I have a mate who didn't rejoin, and has no intention of rejoining and is therefore not a member of any club. However, he is still able to submit scores for handicap at other courses using the MyEG App, and presumably could still enter Opens with an official handicap. I know this is a club issue, not directly a WHS issue. However, pre WHS he'd have not been able to submit scores for handicap, because they'd require a Committee member to verify them before being sent to his record. The Committee members would usually be aware the player is no longer a member. However, with WHS it is sent to WHS directly, and it is very unlikely that the Committee will pick up on this and delete it at some point down the line.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 16, 2021)

One thing about the way WHS works that I have not resolved in my mind is when CR off front tees is less than off back tees.  

At my place off front tees has CR of 70; off back it is 72.  SR is same for both sets of tees.  But for most of us yellows aren’t two shots easier, in fact for most they play about the same.  

My feeling is that if I mainly play yellows for most of my golf my H/I is going to be higher than if I’m mainly playing off whites - shooting the same number but off yellows against a CR two less than whites.  

When two members of same ability play a match a ’mainly yellow’ member will quite probably have a higher H/I than the ‘mainly white’ member and might have 2 shots on him.  That doesn’t seem fair and I can’t work out how it isn’t unfair.


----------



## pauljames87 (Aug 16, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Another benefit to WHS (sort of):

My previous club do not update the howdidido system after membership renewal at start of August (if they do, they normally wait until Xmas or the new year to clear out members who have not rejoined). I have a mate who didn't rejoin, and has no intention of rejoining and is therefore not a member of any club. However, he is still able to submit scores for handicap at other courses using the MyEG App, and presumably could still enter Opens with an official handicap. I know this is a club issue, not directly a WHS issue. However, pre WHS he'd have not been able to submit scores for handicap, because they'd require a Committee member to verify them before being sent to his record. The Committee members would usually be aware the player is no longer a member. However, with WHS it is sent to WHS directly, and it is very unlikely that the Committee will pick up on this and delete it at some point down the line.
		
Click to expand...

I think the igolf club has been a benefit, great to be able to play with friends who aren't members of a club but can now sign rounds

Played other day did best round of my life. If wasn't for igolf I wouldnt have been able to record it and get cut..my handicap would be artificially high


----------



## mattfarri (Aug 19, 2021)

Im just getting started with iGolf and have never had a club membership before - the lad i usually play with doesn't have an iGolf or club membership as he isn't fussed about getting a handicap. Any suggestions on how to get my rounds verified?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 19, 2021)

mattfarri said:



			Im just getting started with iGolf and have never had a club membership before - the lad i usually play with doesn't have an iGolf or club membership as he isn't fussed about getting a handicap. Any suggestions on how to get my rounds verified?
		
Click to expand...

The reality is, happy to be corrected, you will need to add someone else to your group who is a member or who has a handicap to get your scores verified. Look on it as a positive, chance to meet new people (did you buy that?). It may be that you may have to play two types of rounds if you or your mate don't fancy playing with others. Most rounds with your mate, a few every so often where you play with other members / handicap holders just to get your handicap going.


----------



## pauljames87 (Aug 19, 2021)

mattfarri said:



			Im just getting started with iGolf and have never had a club membership before - the lad i usually play with doesn't have an iGolf or club membership as he isn't fussed about getting a handicap. Any suggestions on how to get my rounds verified?
		
Click to expand...

Buy him the membership lol cheapest way


----------



## HeftyHacker (Aug 19, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Buy him the membership lol cheapest way
		
Click to expand...

Can you sign off each others cards if neither of you have a handicap though?


----------



## pauljames87 (Aug 19, 2021)

HeftyHacker said:



			Can you sign off each others cards if neither of you have a handicap though?
		
Click to expand...

Yes long as you both members with numbers


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 20, 2021)

I must say, the more this year goes on the more WHS is ruining my enjoyment of the game.  

I used to love the challenge of reducing my handicap.  And the grind of trying to save .1 lifts.

Now I'm regularly standing on the 9th tee with literally nothing to play for, no chance of dislodging a counter, and no motivation to even play on.

Took me years of effort to get where I was, now I can undo and repeat the feat in literally days.  It decides matchplay in a nearly random fashion, it is unpolicable by commitees, and is in no way portable to other clubs / countries, because it's so often no refection of your ability to begin with.  Its barely portable in my own club due to how loosely applied the rules are in various sweeps and swindles.

The ego handicaps and sandbaggers have tripled at my club.  Even the scratch matches are now a nonsense as there are so many players with low handicaps due to gaming the system that many matches have become practical walk overs.  

Its not been good for me.  Its been a total disaster.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			I must say, the more this year goes on the more WHS is ruining my enjoyment of the game.

I used to love the challenge of reducing my handicap.  And the grind of trying to save .1 lifts.

Now I'm regularly standing on the 9th tee with literally nothing to play for, no chance of dislodging a counter, and no motivation to even play on.

Took me years of effort to get where I was, now I can undo and repeat the feat in literally days. It decides matchplay in a nearly random fashion, it is unpolicable by commitees, and is in no way portable to other clubs / countries, because it's so often no refection of your ability to begin with. Its barely portable in my own club due to how loosely applied the rules are in various sweeps and swindles.

The ego handicaps and sandbaggers have tripled at my club. Even the scratch matches are now a nonsense as there are so many players with low handicaps due to gaming the system that many matches have become practical walk overs.

Its not been good for me. Its been a total disaster.
		
Click to expand...

You still have the chance to post a lowish differential that will potentially reduce any increase down the line - if not then you are talking about having no chance of making buffer under the old system after 9 holes and there is surely no difference in your motivation than before.

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't sound like your handicap committee is very effective.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			I must say, the more this year goes on the more WHS is ruining my enjoyment of the game. 

I used to love the challenge of reducing my handicap.  And the grind of trying to save .1 lifts.

Now I'm regularly standing on the 9th tee with literally nothing to play for, no chance of dislodging a counter, and no motivation to even play on.

Took me years of effort to get where I was, now I can undo and repeat the feat in literally days.  It decides matchplay in a nearly random fashion, it is unpolicable by commitees, and is in no way portable to other clubs / countries, because it's so often no refection of your ability to begin with.  Its barely portable in my own club due to how loosely applied the rules are in various sweeps and swindles.

The ego handicaps and sandbaggers have tripled at my club.  *Even the scratch matches are now a nonsense as there are so many players with low handicaps due to gaming the system that many matches have become practical walk overs. *

Its not been good for me.  Its been a total disaster.
		
Click to expand...

You'll have to explain that? There's no handicap, it's scratch, what has WHS got to do with that? 

Your lack of motivation comment though rings true, seeing quite a few disgruntled single figure handicappers at my club, and I've even suffered from it myself, I've had 4 scores in the 90s + an NR this year, must be 20 years or more since I've done that, I always ground it out whatever my score, now I've got into a bad mindset of "oh it can't be one of my best 8 now" and stop concentrating. Yes that's not the fault of WHS, but it is a symptom


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			I must say, the more this year goes on the more WHS is ruining my enjoyment of the game. 

I used to love the challenge of reducing my handicap.  And the grind of trying to save .1 lifts.

Now I'm regularly standing on the 9th tee with literally nothing to play for, no chance of dislodging a counter, and no motivation to even play on.

Took me years of effort to get where I was, now I can undo and repeat the feat in literally days.  It decides matchplay in a nearly random fashion, it is unpolicable by commitees, and is in no way portable to other clubs / countries, because it's so often no refection of your ability to begin with.  Its barely portable in my own club due to how loosely applied the rules are in various sweeps and swindles.

The ego handicaps and sandbaggers have tripled at my club.  Even the scratch matches are now a nonsense as there are so many players with low handicaps due to gaming the system that many matches have become practical walk overs. 

Its not been good for me.  Its been a total disaster.
		
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with the ego handicappers, and sadly the sandbaggers as well. The extremely low handicappers can now pile in general play rounds at will, and unless the Committee are absolutely on the ball and vigorously checking the flood of general play scores that come in, the low handicappers can pick and choose which rounds they submit (not to mention some Committees not being aware of the WHS requirements or limitation of the tech, and perhaps some other committees actually proud of the fact they have some very very low handicappers at the club, and will happily allow these good scores to be used on their record, and the bad ones to be binned). Fast forward a year or so, it would be interesting to see how many low handicappers have a significant proportion of their best 8 from general play, and most competitions outside their top 8.

It makes me a bit more nervous about players who choose to submit only their bad scores. They're a bit harder to identify (assuming the club are unable to enforce proper pre-registration from source). The only way around it is to have a system that can virtually guarantee players must pre-register for handicap rounds, and that there are a lot of systems in place within the technology that put up barriers to those trying to con the system, before purely relying on the handicap committee as a final safety net.


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 20, 2021)

I am afraid I could be viewed as a sand bagger as I have not put any cards in since July 10th, nor played any medals. The reason being I play late afternoon or early evening on my own or the the day in the weekend I have is a match play round. 
I get few weekends free as the wife has a shoot or there is some family get together.

The last match play round I was asked how I managed to get my handicap up and brutally honest I played poorly in all the competitions I played. 
I don’t want to put a card in when I am rolling up, it won’t overly change my handicap as I have 8 pretty low scores that at my best I am 1 or 2 shots below and at my worst 10 shots above!


----------



## IanM (Aug 20, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			You'll have to explain that? There's no handicap, it's scratch, what has WHS got to do with that?
		
Click to expand...

I assumed he meant there are folk who have managed HI down so that they qualify for Club Teams and Scratch Opens Events..  "ego handicappers" as above.... selectively putting in scores, iffy gen play cards... 

So they end up in club scratch matches and get stuffed every time...

Our Team Capts have said that unless you are going low in Club Medals regularly... you are not getting picked, regardless of what it says on the App!!


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 20, 2021)

All the handicap committee can do is process tge scores, if its


Banchory Buddha said:



			You'll have to explain that? There's no handicap, it's scratch, what has WHS got to do with that?

Your lack of motivation comment though rings true, seeing quite a few disgruntled single figure handicappers at my club, and I've even suffered from it myself, I've had 4 scores in the 90s + an NR this year, must be 20 years or more since I've done that, I always ground it out whatever my score, now I've got into a bad mindset of "oh it can't be one of my best 8 now" and stop concentrating. Yes that's not the fault of WHS, but it is a symptom
		
Click to expand...

Scratch teams are picked on a meritocracy, so lowest handicappers play.  Now you have "new" good golfers being picked ahead of "established" good players and being absolutely annihilated in matches...


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			All the handicap committee can do is process tge scores, if its


Scratch teams are picked on a meritocracy, so lowest handicappers play.  Now you have "new" good golfers being picked ahead of "established" good players and being absolutely annihilated in matches...
		
Click to expand...

Ah OK, you lost me there, our captain picks what he thinks is the best team and that's it. Looks like you might have to do similar now then?


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 20, 2021)

My lack of motivation on the bad rounds come from

Its not one of my better scores, I've got plenty,  or have time to get more 'nearly scores'.  And there's literally no penalty for a horrendous score, so whats the point in trying now that .1s dont happen.  Literally a throw away the card situation.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			My lack of motivation on the bad rounds come from

Its not one of my better scores, I've got plenty,  or have time to get more 'nearly scores'.  And there's literally no penalty for a horrendous score, so whats the point in trying now that .1s dont happen.  Literally a throw away the card situation.
		
Click to expand...

That 'throw away the card' could be taken as not submitting the card, I'd always submit the card,  no matter what combination of letters and numbers it had writting on it ...


----------



## wjemather (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Scratch teams are picked on a meritocracy, so lowest handicappers play.  Now you have "new" good golfers being picked ahead of "established" good players and being absolutely annihilated in matches...
		
Click to expand...

When it comes to match-play, meritocracy is not all about handicap, which only demonstrates average-best stroke-play ability. Other factors must be considered when selecting scratch teams, such as demonstrated match-play ability, consistency, etc.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Took me years of effort to get where I was, now I can undo and *repeat the feat in literally days*.
The ego handicaps and sandbaggers have tripled at my club.  Even the scratch matches are now a nonsense as there are so many players with low handicaps due to gaming the system that many matches have become practical walk overs. 

Its not been good for me.  Its been a total disaster.
		
Click to expand...

I presume from that remark you play nearly every day and put in a card every time you play.

I play in about 20-30 comps a year and so far my handicap has become very stable, within 1 shot (Playing Handicap) despite huge fluctuations in scores.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			All the handicap committee can do is process tge scores, if its


Scratch teams are picked on a meritocracy, so lowest handicappers play.  Now you have "new" good golfers being picked ahead of "established" good players and being absolutely annihilated in matches...
		
Click to expand...

 On the other hand prior to (and even now) the WHS we had 'good players' not submitting bad rounds so their handicap would not go up so they stayed in teams keeping out improving players (who were better than than them in reality)  from getting in the teams. As an observation team captains tend to pick established players over 'newcomers'.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 20, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			I presume from that remark you play nearly every day and put in a card every time you play.

I play in about 20-30 comps a year and so far my handicap has become very stable, within 1 shot (Playing Handicap) despite huge fluctuations in scores.
		
Click to expand...

We did the calc in another thread, but for a 10 handicap player to get to scratch was practically impossible in less than about 3 years.  So a committed long term goal.  Last week a 5 handicapper got cut to 1.6, in one round!!


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			We did the calc in another thread, but for a 10 handicap player to get to scratch was practically impossible in less than about 3 years.
		
Click to expand...

 I would slightly disagree under the UHS I went from 12 to 5 in about 6 months when I stopped work and played regularly. It was only my age and fitness which stopped me going lower. The trouble with doing it just by calculation is that it does not take in to account handicap committee review, I had 2 in that period.

However I would agree on that point about the WHS. Based upon the average best 8 of the rounds played I would have gone lower under the WHS.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 20, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			I am afraid I could be viewed as a sand bagger as I have not put any cards in since July 10th, nor played any medals. The reason being I play late afternoon or early evening on my own or the the day in the weekend I have is a match play round.
I get few weekends free as the wife has a shoot or there is some family get together.

The last match play round I was asked how I managed to get my handicap up and brutally honest I played poorly in all the competitions I played.
I don’t want to put a card in when I am rolling up, it won’t overly change my handicap as I have 8 pretty low scores that at my best I am 1 or 2 shots below and at my worst 10 shots above!
		
Click to expand...

July 10th? That’s recent!  I’ve a match coming up against a bloke who plays very regularly yet hasn’t put a score in since June 6th.  He’s told me he‘s playing 4 rounds next week - I’ll be interested to see if any hit his handicap record.  He knocked me out of another comp a couple of months back and played well under his handicap…hmm…oh suspicious mind…though I did myself play not that well…🙄


----------



## Imurg (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			I must say, the more this year goes on the more WHS is ruining my enjoyment of the game.

I used to love the challenge of reducing my handicap.  And the grind of trying to save .1 lifts.

Now I'm regularly standing on the 9th tee with literally nothing to play for, no chance of dislodging a counter, and no motivation to even play on.

.
		
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean.
The other week I was on the 14th, the card was never going to be good enough to count but there was no motivation to " make buffer" because, even then, it probably wouldn't be good enough to ever count.. Found it hard to commit to the rest of the round..whereas a couple of years ago I'd have buckled down and tried to buffer at least.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 20, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			I would slightly disagree under the UHS I went from 12 to 5 in about 6 months when I stopped work and played regularly. It was only my age and fitness which stopped me going lower. The trouble with doing it just by calculation is that it does not take in to account handicap committee review, I had 2 in that period.

However I would agree on that point about the WHS. Based upon the average best 8 of the rounds played I would have gone lower under the WHS.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah agree,  but in the golden era, once you got to 5, started coming down in .1s, every missed buffer was .1 back, and handicap reviews were very very rarely approved by the county, it was a slog and a half to come down, as I'm sure youre very well aware!!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			My lack of motivation on the bad rounds come from

Its not one of my better scores, I've got plenty,  or have time to get more 'nearly scores'.  And there's literally no penalty for a horrendous score, so whats the point in trying now that .1s dont happen.  Literally a throw away the card situation.
		
Click to expand...

This is the argument I use in favour of our rollups being WHS qualifiers.  If I want to mess around and have fun in my rollup fourball my eventual score can be whatever it is because if it’s rubbish I’ll just chuck it over the fence into my pond of 20 and it’ll sink to the bottom - most likely to never have any impact on my H/I. If it’s half decent then it will or might count - and that’s how it should be.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Yeah agree,  but in the golden era, once you got to 5, started coming down in .1s, every missed buffer was .1 back, and handicap reviews were very very rarely approved by the county, it was a slog and a half to come down, as I'm sure youre very well aware!!
		
Click to expand...

Yup, apart from a few months spent at 4 and down to my lowest of 3.7, I spent the last 20 years bouncing back and forwards between 5 & 6. The cuts of 0.1, and the buffer of only one - so effectively when going from 6 to 5 it's like a 2 shot cut - meant I just couldn't stay lower. I was working in a golf shop at the time of my all time low, so was hitting balls and putting all day when quiet.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Yeah agree,  but in the golden era, once you got to 5, started coming down in .1s, every missed buffer was .1 back, and handicap reviews were very very rarely approved by the county, it was a slog and a half to come down, as I'm sure youre very well aware!!
		
Click to expand...

 Yes.  I had forgotten how quickly I went back to 5.5 and how many years I kept bouncing around between 5.5 and 6.4


----------



## Voyager EMH (Aug 20, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			I must say, the more this year goes on the more WHS is ruining my enjoyment of the game. 

I used to love the challenge of reducing my handicap.  And the grind of trying to save .1 lifts.

Now I'm regularly standing on the 9th tee with literally nothing to play for, no chance of dislodging a counter, and no motivation to even play on.

Took me years of effort to get where I was, now I can undo and repeat the feat in literally days.  It decides matchplay in a nearly random fashion, it is unpolicable by commitees, and is in no way portable to other clubs / countries, because it's so often no refection of your ability to begin with.  Its barely portable in my own club due to how loosely applied the rules are in various sweeps and swindles.

The ego handicaps and sandbaggers have tripled at my club.  Even the scratch matches are now a nonsense as there are so many players with low handicaps due to gaming the system that many matches have become practical walk overs. 

Its not been good for me.  Its been a total disaster.
		
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite for me.
Previously the only way to reduce my handicap was to play below my handicap. Now, most of the time, I have only to beat my 8th best score to do so. 
A few times, when the first nine holes were poor, I have stuck to the task and returned a score a few shots higher than my handicap. This has the effect of dampening any upward movement when a good score disappears from the 20 in subsequent rounds. Very useful, I have found, to have several scores 3 shots higher than handicap in my 20. Previously, these would have all been +0.1. Now they have the effect of actually limiting rises to handicap.
In my last 20 scores, there are 12 that would previously caused my handicap to rise by 1.2. Now those 12 poor scores have no bearing on my handicap.
It has taken me 5 decades of effort to get where I am.
If my handicap goes up, I have only myself to blame for returning poor scores. WHS will then give me a realistic handicap a lot sooner than the old system would have done.
All in all, a much better system of handicap adjustment than the previous one.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 20, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Quite the opposite for me.
A few times, when the first nine holes were poor, I have stuck to the task and returned a score a few shots higher than my handicap. This has the effect of dampening any upward movement when a good score disappears from the 20 in subsequent rounds. Very useful, I have found, to have several scores 3 shots higher than handicap in my 20.
		
Click to expand...

Good idea, that's maybe where the back up focus needs to be for next season, I'm currently looking at my 9th worst, but should probably have a few beyond that too


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Aug 26, 2021)

Kaz said:



			I agree with much that @sweaty sock posted.

I don't think the shift of emphasis from ability to form is doing the system any favours. I realised this week after losing a mixed 4s tie when we were 3 under par scratch (against a player whose handicap has become artificially high presumably due to a run of bad form but who retains the ability to play well below it) and similar happened to me in the singles, that I just wasn't enjoying playing out my skin and not being able to compete due to the sheer number of shots being given. The slope system exacerbates it - HI drifts up due to bad form and then even more shots are added due to slope. I probably play too much golf anyway so it may be that I won't bother with the handicap knockouts next year.

Incidentally, my partner in that match had 0.7 as his index (2 days ago) and is now at 1.5. So within striking distance of scratch and now off 2. I doubt he can have played more than 2 rounds for that - certainly only once at our club.

The volatility of my own handicap is also a pain. My handicap similarly doubled in two rounds at the start of the year, another couple of bad scores and I almost went from 1 to 3 in four rounds! I didn't lose any ability in that stretch - just a couple of bad rounds in tough conditions when good scores were coming off. I guess the flipside is that it's easier to come down as well, but is that a good thing? Not sure.

I haven't experienced the loss of interest because I've spent most of the year battling to replace good scores so even when I couldn't go down I always seemed to have damage limitation to play for. I now have 5 of my last 6 scores counting so maybe I'll have a few "meaningless" rounds coming up.

Still too early to tell, I think, if the system is better or worse or just different. There's always been people with dodgy handicaps, just seems there's more than ever but might just be sour grapes .

Starting to get used to it though.
		
Click to expand...

My attitude has one of I can put a general play score in any time I wish when I'm off work midweek  at the start of the season and did this maybe 50% of the time I played although I'm rapidly becoming of the mind of why bother?

If I can play at the weekend I will play in the comp purely for a game of golf. Comp play is simply for another counting score, no aspirations of being competative as it seems a course record or near course record would be required.

Not interested in 36 hole scratch events, too old for more than an occasional one for it to be anything other than a slog and any fourball event is a waste of time due to needing crazy scores in this.

Competition golf has lost its appeal in the last month despite playing some of my best golf for a long time this year. Enjoying playing with my mates, whereas in the past competition golf was more of a focus.

Strangely 7 out of my next 8 scores to drop off are rubbish and I'm not particularly bothered about submitting general play cards as we move into the back end of the season, not much point if I'm not bothered about competing.


----------



## harpo_72 (Aug 26, 2021)

My 8 best scores are pretty close together, but my last competition rounds have been nowhere near them. Plus I got myself down to a reasonable number to go from this season and I went back up 3 strokes with the introduction of whs. I thought that was okay but I have not really benefited or made any thing from it and just played to that handicap..
I don’t think the system is to blame, it’s me. But I am doing/ have done far better in the match play competitions than I have expected.. it might be mind set, winning and losing a hole and moving on irrespective of score might be having a positive impact. 
Oh well we will see after the weekend whether any of this is of any consequence.
Dunno what I will do next season as I have played badly this season despite a huge amount of time and effort and it hasn’t transferred to scoring in friendly or competitive rounds ..


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 26, 2021)

For those who feel strongly enough, have a scroll to the bottom of this page and there's the chance to give feedback. I will be, but only once I've collated some thoughts

https://www.randa.org/worldhandicapsystem


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 26, 2021)

I'd agree with some of the comments here, the whs has done nothing for me and I'm erring towards just not playing comps any longer.

I used to love trying to get my handicap down and saving a score with a buffer.

But now I'm in the position of my handicap being too low, off 2.6, which tbh I wouldn't have had a hope in hells chance of getting to under the old system. I was off 5 ish for the last 8 or so years and I won a couple of silver trophys in that time and a couple of knock outs and the club handicap champs. But now with my club having a lot of plus figure players, I don't stand any chance in any of the gross comps since they changes the course and now with a load of guys who were all mid teen handicaps all getting 4 and sometimes 5 shots more shotsvthan under the old system I don't stand a chance in any of the handicap comps either now. Played it a few seniors comp as well this year and tbh don't stand much of a chance there either as only a couple a  gross prize all I've played this year have been won by 20 something handicaps shooting 90plus. I have never entered any comp with the thought of winning but at least I thought I had a chance, now I'd have to shoot well under par gross to compete. One of my mates shot his best score to date at the weekend, 69 gross 2 under par and 4 under the course rating, didn't win, said that was the best he could play and had ever played.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 26, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			For those who feel strongly enough, have a scroll to the bottom of this page and there's the chance to give feedback. I will be, but only once I've collated some thoughts

https://www.randa.org/worldhandicapsystem

Click to expand...


There is nothing at the bottom of the page and most of the stuff on the page predates the WHS coming in to force.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 26, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			There is nothing at the bottom of the page and most of the stuff on the page predates the WHS coming in to force.
		
Click to expand...

There is, there is a WHS Feedback section, which says "We would like your feedback! When posting on social media channels, please use #GolfWHS2020 or contact us at whs@randa.org by clicking the link below"


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 26, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			There is nothing at the bottom of the page and most of the stuff on the page predates the WHS coming in to force.
		
Click to expand...

*WHS Feedback*
We would like your feedback! When posting on social media channels, please use #GolfWHS2020 or contact us at whs@randa.org by clicking the link below.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 26, 2021)

I'm surprised at some of the hostility about the new system. It is surely more representative of how you are playing. It doesn't account for an exceptional round but by the nature of averaging your best 8 it's closer to how you are playing week in week out. If your handicap is going up there's a reason for it, same if it goes down. It's closer to reality than the old system. 

For what it's worth, the people I tend to play with are all very happy with the system, like how it smooths things out. No, by the way, none of us have won anything with dodgy scores 😄


----------



## Imurg (Aug 26, 2021)

I think the system works as long as cards are going in regularly 
All my 20 are from the last 3 months 
There are people who haven't put 20 cards in during the last 3 years.
Whigh makes my handicap relatively accurate and theirs as accurately depicting current form as the old system.
That's where these ridiculous scores are coming from.
You almost have 2 systems running, especially as there is no requirement to put cards in to keep an index accurate.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 26, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



*WHS Feedback*
We would like your feedback! When posting on social media channels, please use #GolfWHS2020 or contact us at whs@randa.org by clicking the link below.
		
Click to expand...

 It appeared there this time but was not there last time - how weird.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Aug 26, 2021)

Imurg said:



			I think the system works as long as cards are going in regularly
All my 20 are from the last 3 months
There are people who haven't put 20 cards in during the last 3 years.
Whigh makes my handicap relatively accurate and theirs as accurately depicting current form as the old system.
That's where these ridiculous scores are coming from.
You almost have 2 systems running, especially as there is no requirement to put cards in to keep an index accurate.
		
Click to expand...

Strangely most of the ridiculous scores at my place are coming from golfers with a lengthy handicap record.

Appears they have multiple car crash rounds then somehow manage to to come in with something silly.

If I was playing crap I go and sort it out, either through hard graft practising or get a lesson or two. If you play a lot of golf and don't really care about playing rubbish you can put enough cards in to get several shots back quickly and suddenly you have a good day and clean up.

I think this is a bit of an unintended consequence of WHS, regular bad play can get rewarded.  I used to think my absolute best golf had a chance to win a club comp, now it would take beating the course record which is well beyond me.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 26, 2021)

saving_par said:



			Strangely most of the ridiculous scores at my place are coming from golfers with a lengthy handicap record.

Appears they have multiple car crash rounds then somehow manage to to come in with something silly.

If I was playing crap I go and sort it out, either through hard graft practising or get a lesson or two. If you play a lot of golf and don't really care about playing rubbish you can put enough cards in to get several shots back quickly and suddenly you have a good day and clean up.

I think this is a bit of an unintended consequence of WHS, regular bad play can get rewarded.  I used to think my absolute best golf had a chance to win a club comp, now it would take beating the course record which is well beyond me.
		
Click to expand...

This is something I was worried about pre WHS. There are players, who when after a few bad holes (as early as the front 9), basically give up. They feel they cannot win, and just lose all competitive urge. Mess about, back hand putts, etc. This can lead to many car crash rounds, rounds they may well have saved if they kept their head and had a strong back 9. 

This could lead to an inflated handicap Index, particularly if they are hugely inconsistent and any of these rounds slip into their top 8. It means that, on 10 to 20% of rounds where they play well throughout the round, they can shoot much more under their Index. Compare to the perfectly consistent golfer whose top 8 scores are all level par (we'll say course rating also level par). Then their best score in 20 is still only 36 points.

I guess my biggest concern would be big scores from new golfers, especially those with high initial handicaps. But I'm more interested to see if there will be issues with very inconsistent golfers, as you have potentially seen. WHS may possibly reward golfers for putting the handbreak on as soon as they feel they cannot win, if they are that way inclined.


----------



## IanM (Aug 26, 2021)

Yep.  We have had low and high handicappers have the pattern of slump then, clean up when they get a shot or two back.

These are also folk who play lots of recorded rounds. 

My 20 still has 2020 rounds in it, its called working for a living.    Mind you, only 5 weeks of that left!!


----------



## woofers (Aug 26, 2021)

No surprise there’s a bit of whinging going on here. In any system there will be some people trying to “game it”, it just reflects their nature. 
My take on WHS is that it’s an improvement on the old system, properly used it reflects your current ability whereas the old system reflected your potential, for instance one good round could result in a swingeing cut whereas the new system requires more consistency of low rounds to have a similar effect.
Vanity handicappers are now finding out that they‘re not really single figure golfers.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Aug 26, 2021)

woofers said:



			No surprise there’s a bit of whinging going on here. In any system there will be some people trying to “game it”, it just reflects their nature.
My take on WHS is that it’s an improvement on the old system, properly used it reflects your current ability whereas the old system reflected your potential, for instance one good round could result in a swingeing cut whereas the new system requires more consistency of low rounds to have a similar effect.
Vanity handicappers are now finding out that they‘re not really single figure golfers.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe people are 'gaming' the system at my club. Simply a case of certain handicap groups having a good knock after a sustained spell of rubbish which resulted in a handfull of shots back.

Find the heather or gorse a few times a round or be clueless about chopping it out sideways when in the crap and a cricket score results. Suddenly a round of hitting fairways and low and behold, a nett 61 or 48/49 points and happy days.

Steady golf is a waste of time and I think WHS has produced more 'vanity' handicaps than the old system. Mine is currently lower than its ever been and i have been playing 40 odd years. There is no way on earth I'm a 3 handicapper. Never lower than 3.8 under the old system and 5.4 WHS came in.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 26, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			This is something I was worried about pre WHS. There are players, who when after a few bad holes (as early as the front 9), basically give up. They feel they cannot win, and just lose all competitive urge. Mess about, back hand putts, etc. This can lead to many car crash rounds, rounds they may well have saved if they kept their head and had a strong back 9.
		
Click to expand...

This is natural though, and is a potentil weakness of the WHS compared to Congu. You cannot blame anyone for not trying their best to score 26 points instead of 25 - people start working on their swings, their mind is already on other things, or they are just having a laugh with their playing partners rather than focusing on getting that 4 ft putt. We all do it all the time. WHS hc increases as a result, whereas the Congu one was unaffected. Once the point 1 was done, it didnt matter. But does it really affect the WHS handicap - these rounds are unlikely to ever make their 8 rounds from 20 ? So not sure that the messing you describe has a practical effect.


----------



## IanMcC (Aug 26, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			I'd agree with some of the comments here, the whs has done nothing for me and I'm erring towards just not playing comps any longer.

I used to love trying to get my handicap down and saving a score with a buffer.

But now I'm in the position of my handicap being too low, off 2.6, which tbh I wouldn't have had a hope in hells chance of getting to under the old system. I was off 5 ish for the last 8 or so years and I won a couple of silver trophys in that time and a couple of knock outs and the club handicap champs. But now with my club having a lot of plus figure players, I don't stand any chance in any of the gross comps since they changes the course and now with a load of guys who were all mid teen handicaps all getting 4 and sometimes 5 shots more shotsvthan under the old system I don't stand a chance in any of the handicap comps either now. Played it a few seniors comp as well this year and tbh don't stand much of a chance there either as only a couple a  gross prize all I've played this year have been won by 20 something handicaps shooting 90plus. I have never entered any comp with the thought of winning but at least I thought I had a chance, now I'd have to shoot well under par gross to compete. One of my mates shot his best score to date at the weekend, 69 gross 2 under par and 4 under the course rating, didn't win, said that was the best he could play and had ever played.
		
Click to expand...

Without any hint of malice towards you, patricks148, this post just about sums up everything I don't like about ageing 'so called' golfers!

1. Play 20 rounds and refresh your index if you think its wrong.
2. Your CONGU 5ish probably equates to about a shot or 2 more than you have now, so what's the big deal?
3. You proudly rattle your trophies. Meaningless.
4. You 'never enter a comp with a thought of winning', but are considering giving up the game because you cannot  win any more. Go figure!
5. You are getting older. Just face it.
6. Gross was gross before and after WHS, so don't blame WHS on your plight.

You either love playing the game, or you don't. I believe you love winning instead. Again, no offence, but you should change your attitude or find a new sport, I feel.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 26, 2021)

Imurg said:



			I think the system works as long as cards are going in regularly
All my 20 are from the last 3 months
There are people who haven't put 20 cards in during the last 3 years.
		
Click to expand...

You are a real outlier though with 20 in 3 months. Most even quite active golfers will not reach 20 cards in a year. I think a dozen singles a year is about average (they will be playing plenty more competitions though - interclub, teams, matchplays, fourballs, etc). 20 cards in 3 years is a significant portion of the active handicap golfing population I would say. So are you really saying the system doesnt work ?


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 27, 2021)

IanMcC said:



			Without any hint of malice towards you, patricks148, this post just about sums up everything I don't like about ageing 'so called' golfers!

1. Play 20 rounds and refresh your index if you think its wrong.
2. Your CONGU 5ish probably equates to about a shot or 2 more than you have now, so what's the big deal?
3. You proudly rattle your trophies. Meaningless.
4. You 'never enter a comp with a thought of winning', but are considering giving up the game because you cannot  win any more. Go figure!
5. You are getting older. Just face it.
6. Gross was gross before and after WHS, so don't blame WHS on your plight.

You either love playing the game, or you don't. I believe you love winning instead. Again, no offence, but you should change your attitude or find a new sport, I feel.
		
Click to expand...

No hint of malice, really you can't help slipping in a few personal digs though??
I'd read what people write  before jumping in if I were you, I not once said I was giving up, or blamed whs for the gross prize being out of reach. The 5 handicap off the old system eqated to at least 3 shots more.

As for 20 new scores, I've played more than that this year, the fact the poor ones don't count is a factor as quoted by others in the thread, but don't let this and the other points get in the way of your.... digs🙄


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 27, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			This is natural though, and is a potentil weakness of the WHS compared to Congu. You cannot blame anyone for not trying their best to score 26 points instead of 25 - people start working on their swings, their mind is already on other things, or they are just having a laugh with their playing partners rather than focusing on getting that 4 ft putt. We all do it all the time. WHS hc increases as a result, whereas the Congu one was unaffected. Once the point 1 was done, it didnt matter. But does it really affect the WHS handicap - these rounds are unlikely to ever make their 8 rounds from 20 ? So not sure that the messing you describe has a practical effect.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure we've all had rounds where we start terribly, but then have an amazing back 9 and end up with a good, if not very good score. I've been 6 or 7 over after 4 or 5 holes before, then been 1 or 2 under for rest of round to beat handicap. A score that would easily get into my top 8. I guess I just start to relax, find a rhythm and start getting on a role. However, players who decide to mentally give up (and, you are right, I don't blame them, it is a natural reaction for many), will end up with a very bad score. It doesn't get in their top 8 when it could have, thus higher Index. 

Furthermore, if they have this attitude for over 60% of rounds, these bad rounds actually start creeping into their top 8 for an ever bigger impact.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 27, 2021)

saving_par said:



			I don't believe people are 'gaming' the system at my club. Simply a case of certain handicap groups having a good knock after a sustained spell of rubbish which resulted in a handfull of shots back.

Find the heather or gorse a few times a round or be clueless about chopping it out sideways when in the crap and a cricket score results. Suddenly a round of hitting fairways and low and behold, a nett 61 or 48/49 points and happy days.

*Steady golf is a waste of time and I think WHS has produced more 'vanity' handicaps than the old system.* Mine is currently lower than its ever been and i have been playing 40 odd years. There is no way on earth I'm a 3 handicapper. Never lower than 3.8 under the old system and 5.4 WHS came in.
		
Click to expand...

100% this, nearly every golfer 4 and under in the old system was cut over the winter, we'd one +2 went to +4 without a ball being struck.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 27, 2021)

IanMcC said:



			Without any hint of malice towards you, patricks148, this post just about sums up everything I don't like about ageing 'so called' golfers!

1. Play 20 rounds and refresh your index if you think its wrong.
2. Your CONGU 5ish probably equates to about a shot or 2 more than you have now, so what's the big deal?
3. You proudly rattle your trophies. Meaningless.
4. You 'never enter a comp with a thought of winning', but are considering giving up the game because you cannot  win any more. Go figure!
5. You are getting older. Just face it.
6. Gross was gross before and after WHS, so don't blame WHS on your plight.

You either love playing the game, or you don't. I believe you love winning instead. Again, no offence, but you should change your *attitude* or find a new *sport*, I feel.
		
Click to expand...

Sport & winning eh, whudda thunk that was a bad thing? Let's be honest here, 99% of players are hoping to win every time you tee off.

I remember being at a golf day many years ago at Beau Desert (may have been a GM day actually), blind draw for teams, think we were second last off, 4 man am-am format, one of our team proudly announces on the first tee, "I'm not here to compete, I'm just here for the day out"....aye,  Mod edit


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 27, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			I am afraid I could be viewed as a sand bagger as I have not put any cards in since July 10th, nor played any medals. The reason being I play late afternoon or early evening on my own or the the day in the weekend I have is a match play round.
I get few weekends free as the wife has a shoot or there is some family get together.

The last match play round I was asked how I managed to get my handicap up and brutally honest I played poorly in all the competitions I played.
I don’t want to put a card in when I am rolling up, it won’t overly change my handicap as I have 8 pretty low scores that at my best I am 1 or 2 shots below and at my worst 10 shots above!
		
Click to expand...

Mine's the same, last card I put in was July 3rd, but then I'm still only doing competition rounds. I've no interest in handing in cards from my friendly rounds as I don't want them to matter, I prefer to be relaxed and not worried about where I take a drop from or picking the ball up for gimme. My oldest 'top 8' round is from Feb 2020. And my best round recently was 12 over par at an away course, but when I play an away course now I just want to enjoy the day and not care about the score so I don't put those in either. 

I've not entered many comps lately because they've got rid of the booking system and I don't want to turn up before 9am so I'm screwed on that front anyway. Who knows when I'll be able to enter another one. Oh and on top of that, in a couple of months my club will be starting work on a couple of holes and apparently the course might be playing as only 16 holes over winter so won't count for handicap anyway or something. So I guess my handicap is frozen for a while.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Mine's the same, last card I put in was July 3rd, but then I'm still only doing competition rounds. I've no interest in handing in cards from my friendly rounds as I don't want them to matter, I prefer to be relaxed and not worried about where I take a drop from or picking the ball up for gimme. My oldest 'top 8' round is from Feb 2020. And my best round recently was 12 over par at an away course, but when I play an away course now I just want to enjoy the day and not care about the score so I don't put those in either.

*I've not entered many comps lately because they've got rid of the booking system and I don't want to turn up before 9am* so I'm screwed on that front anyway. Who knows when I'll be able to enter another one. Oh and on top of that, in a couple of months my club will be starting work on a couple of holes and apparently the course might be playing as only 16 holes over winter so won't count for handicap anyway or something. So I guess my handicap is frozen for a while.
		
Click to expand...

Do your comps not have a draw, so that you know the time you are teeing off before you turn up?


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 27, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Do your comps not have a draw, so that you know the time you are teeing off before you turn up?
		
Click to expand...

They've scrapped the online booking and replaced it with a three-tee start, so you have to arrive at the crack of dawn and nobody is allowed to tee off later than 9:30, unless you play after 12:30 - so I take the latter. Honestly not sure how that works with comps, I'm just annoyed by it generally.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			I've not entered many comps lately because they've got rid of the booking system
		
Click to expand...

I agree with much of your post, especially about casual rounds being just that.

However this..are your club mental? Why would you get rid of the booking system? Until Covid we were a turn up and go club, Covid obviously necessitated having to track people so bookings were introduced.  Now they are here to stay, almost unanimous acceptance even for bounce games, we will never go back. Would love to know the logic?


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 27, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I agree with much of your post, especially about casual rounds being just that.

However this..are your club mental? Why would you get rid of the booking system? Until Covid we were a turn up and go club, Covid obviously necessitated having to track people so bookings were introduced.  Now they are here to stay, almost unanimous acceptance even for bounce games, we will never go back. Would love to know the logic?
		
Click to expand...

Like all stupid golf decisions I imagine it's because of 'tradition'. My friends and I only joined last Christmas and it was suggested the online booking had been brought in for long-term, not just Covid. But, once the restrictions were lifted they went back to 'how it's always been' which was a three-tee start, meaning everyone turns up first thing in the morning and is put into groups. Not allowed to tee off between 9:30 and 12:30 - never mind that we used to play at 10:30 to 11 ish every Saturday. I believe if you pay a 7-day membership you should be allowed to tee off whenever suits, but if nothing changes I guess I'll be moving on next year.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Like all stupid golf decisions I imagine it's because of 'tradition'. My friends and I only joined last Christmas and it was suggested the online booking had been brought in for long-term, not just Covid. But, once the restrictions were lifted they went back to 'how it's always been' which was a three-tee start, meaning everyone turns up first thing in the morning and is put into groups. Not allowed to tee off between 9:30 and 12:30 - never mind that we used to play at 10:30 to 11 ish every Saturday. I believe if you pay a 7-day membership you should be allowed to tee off whenever suits, but if nothing changes I guess I'll be moving on next year.
		
Click to expand...

That sounds bizarre. The booking system at my last club was rubbish. You had to sort out playing partners, then phone club to see what was available (and often owner fitted you in between official 8 minute slots if no space). It completely killed the social side at the club (its biggest strength) as we could no longer have roll ups. As such, the Mens Section of the club has fallen apart, Committee collapsed and there is barely anyone left. Since August competitions have been cancelled as not enough players to play (most have left the club), and those that have gone ahead have had less than 10 entrants. The club championship was ridiculous, as the winning score was so high, at best it would only have got within 10 shots of the worst winning score since 2012 (since records began). And the weather was nice this year for both rounds.

However, at new club, they use Club V1 members hub, and I love it. You can see what is available and book immediately. You can see who is playing also, so if you've no one to play with you may recognise someone and join them. I guess many clubs use this. There is a group that have gone out for years any weekend day there is no competition, meet up for a drink, organise groups and then go out. The club have accommodated them by giving them 8 consecutive slots from around 10am on non-competition days. So, all in all, it seems like the club have done well to accommodate the needs of all types of players.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 27, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			You are a real outlier though with 20 in 3 months. Most even quite active golfers will not reach 20 cards in a year. I think a dozen singles a year is about average (they will be playing plenty more competitions though - interclub, teams, matchplays, fourballs, etc). 20 cards in 3 years is a significant portion of the active handicap golfing population I would say. So are you really saying the system doesnt work ?
		
Click to expand...

 Having a discussion across the table with guys I play with on a fairly regular basis all of them including me have twenty scores in since May.  Several of the swindles I play now encourage all participants to put in a card every time they play in it.

I will say that the vast majority of guys I play with regularly play several times a week. The joys of being retired or self employed.

I would agree 20 cards in three years is significant for those that that only put in cards when they play in a comp however even if you are only playing once a week, allowing for course conditions etc that is around 40 opportunities to put in a card.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 27, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			100% this, nearly every golfer 4 and under in the old system was cut over the winter, we'd one +2 went to +4 without a ball being struck.
		
Click to expand...

 I am surprised by that. I assume it was from the annual review. As you are no doubt aware, any change  the old Cat 1 golfers had to be ratified by County. In all my years on a handicap committee we only put in 2 requests to county to change a such a player.


----------



## Orikoru (Aug 27, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			That sounds bizarre. The booking system at my last club was rubbish. You had to sort out playing partners, then phone club to see what was available (and often owner fitted you in between official 8 minute slots if no space). It completely killed the social side at the club (its biggest strength) as we could no longer have roll ups. As such, the Mens Section of the club has fallen apart, Committee collapsed and there is barely anyone left. Since August competitions have been cancelled as not enough players to play (most have left the club), and those that have gone ahead have had less than 10 entrants. The club championship was ridiculous, as the winning score was so high, at best it would only have got within 10 shots of the worst winning score since 2012 (since records began). And the weather was nice this year for both rounds.

However, at new club, they use Club V1 members hub, and I love it. You can see what is available and book immediately. You can see who is playing also, so if you've no one to play with you may recognise someone and join them. I guess many clubs use this. There is a group that have gone out for years any weekend day there is no competition, meet up for a drink, organise groups and then go out. The club have accommodated them by giving them 8 consecutive slots from around 10am on non-competition days. So, all in all, it seems like the club have done well to accommodate the needs of all types of players.
		
Click to expand...

That's how it was when we joined until about a month ago. We have the IG Member app and you could just go on there and book yourself into a timeslot, easy as pie. You could join another member's group if you wish. They just scrapped it all for the weekends. You can still use it on weekdays though. Great.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Aug 27, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			I am surprised by that. I assume it was from the annual review. As you are no doubt aware, any change  the old Cat 1 golfers had to be ratified by County. In all my years on a handicap committee we only put in 2 requests to county to change a such a player.
		
Click to expand...

I think he means the handicaps went from +2 to +4 on introduction of WHS


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 27, 2021)

All this talk about folks gaming the system to get higher handicaps has intrigued me for a while now. To my mind you have to either be submitting a raft of high scores in very short timeframe in order to manipulate your handicap upwards and it should be reasonably easy to spot....lots of rounds submitted, large movement in index, probably a load of folks hitting the soft cap/hard cap limits. Otherwise the only way is to pre-register for a round and then not enter your score if it is a good one by deleting your scoring intent.

So....I extracted a report of the general play rounds submitted between June 1st and August 15th figuring that anyone trying to manipulate their handicap would be looking to replace their entire record (20 rounds) and that 10 weeks playing twice a week was not unreasonable.

Of 450 male members, just 12 golfers had submitted 20 or more GP cards in the time frame considered. The 12 golfers had played 20,21,21,21,22,22,24,26,27,27,29 and 31 rounds each. Their total playing history amounted to between 26 rounds and 117 rounds. Most golfers recent GP rounds represented 60-75% of their total rounds. The average across the group was 58% but this was dragged down by the guy who had 117 scores in his record, removing one low and one high outlier and the group average of the remaining 10 golfers was that 68% of their total record was made up of scores from the last 10 weeks.

So then, which of these golfers have been swinging it to manipulate a higher handicap then? Of the 12 golfers there are two guys who's scores currently have a soft cap having risen 3 and 3.4 strokes above their low index. 7 players have indexes that are within 0.2 of their low index. The remaining three are 0.9, 1.4 and 1.9 higher.

The two guys who are in soft cap....both of them have low indexes that are as a result of a couple of exceptional rounds earlier in their record. They both typically shoot in the mid to low 90's with one player occasionally drifting into 3 figures and on ultra rare occasions shooting in the 80's. The other guy plays maybe two or three shots better. I notice that, since I originally dragged the data off the system that one of them has had a slight cut in index taking him out of the soft cap. If either of these guys are actually trying to manipulate a higher index then they need to make a better effort in my opinion.

What of other golfers in the soft/hard cap category? We currently have a further 9 golfers who are in soft cap territory and 2 golfers who have a hard cap applied. We will get rid of the two guys with a hard cap first...neither have played since 2019. The remainder are all regular players with generally a good mix of competition and general play and they've all submitted half a dozen scores this summer. 2 players low indexes were achieved at a previous club prior to joining us. 2 players have seen good scores from september/october last year start to drop off their record (as we move into those months then the 365 day time frame for when LI is determined will render these scores irrelevant) and two further players Low Index was skewed downwards by a couple of good rounds they shot early in their record which have rarely been approached. The remaining golfers you can see their scoring records are just slowly but surely declining. 

The vast majority of 23 golfers discussed above are seniors.

From looking at what data is available to me I just cannot see any evidence that handicap manipulation, with a view to gaining a competitive advantage, is taking place at our club. Now that's just one club....its not representative I know....but I haven't seen anyone who is talking about handicap manipulation being rife under the new system do any work that is similar to either confirm or deny said suspicions.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 27, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			I am surprised by that. I assume it was from the annual review. As you are no doubt aware, any change  the old Cat 1 golfers had to be ratified by County. In all my years on a handicap committee we only put in 2 requests to county to change a such a player.
		
Click to expand...

No it was from the direct conversion to WHS, his home course is not ours, but I know he wasn't reviewed. Also our lowest "home" player went from 2.1 (if I recall) to 0.9, there were no reviews conducted, everything was a direct conversion.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 27, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			All this talk about folks gaming the system to get higher handicaps has intrigued me for a while now. To my mind you have to either be submitting a raft of high scores in very short timeframe in order to manipulate your handicap upwards and it should be reasonably easy to spot....lots of rounds submitted, large movement in index, probably a load of folks hitting the soft cap/hard cap limits. Otherwise the only way is to pre-register for a round and then not enter your score if it is a good one by deleting your scoring intent.

So....I extracted a report of the general play rounds submitted between June 1st and August 15th figuring that anyone trying to manipulate their handicap would be looking to replace their entire record (20 rounds) and that 10 weeks playing twice a week was not unreasonable.

Of 450 male members, just 12 golfers had submitted 20 or more GP cards in the time frame considered. The 12 golfers had played 20,21,21,21,22,22,24,26,27,27,29 and 31 rounds each. Their total playing history amounted to between 26 rounds and 117 rounds. Most golfers recent GP rounds represented 60-75% of their total rounds. The average across the group was 58% but this was dragged down by the guy who had 117 scores in his record, removing one low and one high outlier and the group average of the remaining 10 golfers was that 68% of their total record was made up of scores from the last 10 weeks.

So then, which of these golfers have been swinging it to manipulate a higher handicap then? Of the 12 golfers there are two guys who's scores currently have a soft cap having risen 3 and 3.4 strokes above their low index. 7 players have indexes that are within 0.2 of their low index. The remaining three are 0.9, 1.4 and 1.9 higher.

The two guys who are in soft cap....both of them have low indexes that are as a result of a couple of exceptional rounds earlier in their record. They both typically shoot in the mid to low 90's with one player occasionally drifting into 3 figures and on ultra rare occasions shooting in the 80's. The other guy plays maybe two or three shots better. I notice that, since I originally dragged the data off the system that one of them has had a slight cut in index taking him out of the soft cap. If either of these guys are actually trying to manipulate a higher index then they need to make a better effort in my opinion.

What of other golfers in the soft/hard cap category? We currently have a further 9 golfers who are in soft cap territory and 2 golfers who have a hard cap applied. We will get rid of the two guys with a hard cap first...neither have played since 2019. The remainder are all regular players with generally a good mix of competition and general play and they've all submitted half a dozen scores this summer. 2 players low indexes were achieved at a previous club prior to joining us. 2 players have seen good scores from september/october last year start to drop off their record (as we move into those months then the 365 day time frame for when LI is determined will render these scores irrelevant) and two further players Low Index was skewed downwards by a couple of good rounds they shot early in their record which have rarely been approached. The remaining golfers you can see their scoring records are just slowly but surely declining.

The vast majority of 23 golfers discussed above are seniors.

From looking at what data is available to me I just cannot see any evidence that handicap manipulation, with a view to gaining a competitive advantage, is taking place at our club. Now that's just one club....its not representative I know....but I haven't seen anyone who is talking about handicap manipulation being rife under the new system do any work that is similar to either confirm or deny said suspicions.
		
Click to expand...

Pre WHS last year, when when golfers were advised to start handing in supplementary scores, I started piling them in from social golf. When I get of to a horrid start, especially in a social round, I don't really bother about score and start experimenting. It often leads to high scores by the end of the round. Based on my thoughts on handicap manipulation, I tried to experiment to see if it would be possible to get a nice handicap increase in short period of time. Thankfully, WHS has made this east to analyse, as they have all these scores on record and show what index was for each round.

On 3/7/21 my Index would have been 6.4 (Course handicap = 7). By 8/8/21 (just over a month later) my Index was 9.7 (Course handicap = 11). To be fair, I played 17 rounds in that time. However, not all rounds were bad either, with 4 rounds in the 70's (Score diffs of 8.9, 8.0, 8.9 and 8.0). However, it showed I could easily increase my handicap, without playing terribly every single round. I easily got into my soft cap, and wouldn't have been hard to get to my hard cap if I wished. So, my course handicap went up 4 shots in that time. Under CONGU it would have gone up 1.5. I suppose the other thing to bear in mind, if a golfer permanently had this attitude, their low index would be higher than it could be anyway, so their hard cap +5 index would actually be more than their potential ability anyway.

Thankfully I've got my Index back down to 7.0 now


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 27, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Pre WHS last year, when when golfers were advised to start handing in supplementary scores, I started piling them in from social golf. When I get of to a horrid start, especially in a social round, I don't really bother about score and start experimenting. It often leads to high scores by the end of the round. Based on my thoughts on handicap manipulation, I tried to experiment to see if it would be possible to get a nice handicap increase in short period of time. Thankfully, WHS has made this east to analyse, as they have all these scores on record and show what index was for each round.

*On 3/7/21 my Index would have been 6.4 (Course handicap = 7). By 8/8/21 (just over a month later) my Index was 9.7 (Course handicap = 11). To be fair, I played 17 rounds in that time*. However, not all rounds were bad either, with 4 rounds in the 70's (Score diffs of 8.9, 8.0, 8.9 and 8.0). However, it showed I could easily increase my handicap, without playing terribly every single round. I easily got into my soft cap, and wouldn't have been hard to get to my hard cap if I wished. So, my course handicap went up 4 shots in that time. Under CONGU it would have gone up 1.5. I suppose the other thing to bear in mind, if a golfer permanently had this attitude, their low index would be higher than it could be anyway, so their hard cap +5 index would actually be more than their potential ability anyway.

Thankfully I've got my Index back down to 7.0 now
		
Click to expand...

But that's quite extreme by most standards and, given the reports that are available, pretty easily identifiable....17 rounds in five weeks and a jump in index into soft cap territory should trigger a Spanish Inquisition into your golfing practices, complete with comfy chair and soft cushions.

I'm happy to agree that a golfer can easily wipe out his recent playing record in a month if he is so determined and, within the constraints of the capping system, get himself a higher index....but I reckon said golfer would stand out like a sore thumb pretty quickly when a couple of the reports are analysed.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 27, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			But that's quite extreme by most standards and, given the reports that are available, pretty easily identifiable....17 rounds in five weeks and a jump in index into soft cap territory should trigger a Spanish Inquisition into your golfing practices, complete with comfy chair and soft cushions.

I'm happy to agree that a golfer can easily wipe out his recent playing record in a month if he is so determined and, within the constraints of the capping system, get himself a higher index....but I reckon said golfer would stand out like a sore thumb pretty quickly when a couple of the reports are analysed.
		
Click to expand...

But therin lies the problem. How many clubs have Committees keeping on top of all these reports? When I was in the role, I spent a lot of time using the unsatisfied score intents report, and Club V1 reporting, to find out who was not returning scores from general play. That caused enough grief and effort tracking these and chasing players.

Now looking at the handicap change report (i think this is the one you'd use?), I'm unsure how useful this is. A lot of the big changes in handicap will likely be due to the player simply starting with very few scores on their record, and the handicap is initially very volatile. I also think you've got to select the start and end dates for the search, so depending on when your start date is could make a huge difference to the handicap change reported. Too short a period, you don't catch a drop that started before the start date. Too long a period, you do not catch a large drop in the latest scores.

To be fair, I'm no longer responsible for reviewing handicaps, so unlikely to get to use the tools available, and no doubt they'll be improved. However, even if a players Index went from 6.4 to 9.7, the player can easily defend this by saying they are playing poorly, and WHS is doing exactly what it should do, representing latest form. They could use this argument, even if they are actually playing the system, and the handicap sec cannot really know either way


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 27, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			No it was from the direct conversion to WHS, his home course is not ours, but I know he wasn't reviewed. Also our lowest "home" player went from 2.1 (if I recall) to 0.9, there were no reviews conducted, everything was a direct conversion.
		
Click to expand...

I understand you now.

 Before it came in the general view was that low handicappers would go lower, high handicappers higher and mid handicaps roughly the same. Which is pretty much what happened with most of the guys I know and from a quick perusal through the handicap list.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 27, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			But therin lies the problem. How many clubs have Committees keeping on top of all these reports? When I was in the role, I spent a lot of time using the unsatisfied score intents report, and Club V1 reporting, to find out who was not returning scores from general play. That caused enough grief and effort tracking these and chasing players.

Now looking at the handicap change report (i think this is the one you'd use?), I'm unsure how useful this is. A lot of the big changes in handicap will likely be due to the player simply starting with very few scores on their record, and the handicap is initially very volatile. I also think you've got to select the start and end dates for the search, so depending on when your start date is could make a huge difference to the handicap change reported. Too short a period, you don't catch a drop that started before the start date. Too long a period, you do not catch a large drop in the latest scores.

To be fair, I'm no longer responsible for reviewing handicaps, so unlikely to get to use the tools available, and no doubt they'll be improved. However, even if a players Index went from 6.4 to 9.7, the player can easily defend this by saying they are playing poorly, and WHS is doing exactly what it should do, representing latest form. They could use this argument, even if they are actually playing the system, and the handicap sec cannot really know either way
		
Click to expand...

I started by looking at the General Play report.....just looking at folks who were submitting lots of rounds in a short period of time....this was my base assumption that anyone wanting to manipulate their handicap would be looking to throw a lot of scores into the system in a short space of time. My 2ndary assumption was that one or 2 shot increases wouldn't materially affect players chances of winning...you need to be up to 3 or 4 stroke increases....which puts you in the soft cap territory....which is why I then looked at the soft cap report.

As you say, the handicap change report is of limited use in itself as you need to weedle out all those with undeveloped score records.

I actually think that some degree of statistical analysis and trend analysis skill may be a benefit to handicap secretaries in order to be able to understand what is normal or abnormal in a scoring record.

I think the WHS has created some opportunity for manipulation dont get me wrong, but there are now tools available to extract data that will help handicap secs in their fight....some of the tools might be a bit blunt at this relatively early juncture but they should improve....hopefully!!


----------



## azazel (Aug 27, 2021)

In my experience, the WHS has been completely fair on my own golf. My old handicap was 5.1 and when WHS came in my index was 3.8, which gave me a playing handicap of 4 round my home course. I've had a poor season so far - albeit with my best ever medal round thrown in - and so my index is now 5.3 and entirely reflective of how my golf has been this year.

However, the overall impact of WHS on scores at our course has been incredible. Previously, if you were -3 or -4 nett you knew you'd be in the hunt for first and almost guaranteed a prize, with winning scores often being as high as par or -1. This year, less than 40 points isn't getting you a top 5 and often not even a top 10. Nothing else has changed other than the handicap system as the course is, if anything, playing tougher than ever, so it stands to reason that WHS is "responsible".

For my part, I'm now in a no-man's land where my scores aren't going to be good enough to win the overall comp in any given week and the scratch prize isn't happening either, so all that's left is to turn up, enjoy the game and just try and shoot the best gross score I can for my own satisfaction.


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 28, 2021)

Reading some of these posts we have appeared to go from pre WHS “ HC are all wrong, people are scoring well and not putting cards in to lower their HCs” cheats.

To post WHS “Why are people putting poor scores into the system and getting higher HCs” cheats.


----------



## Jamesbrown (Aug 28, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			Reading some of these posts we have appeared to go from pre WHS “ HC are all wrong, people are scoring well and not putting cards in to lower their HCs” cheats.

To post WHS “Why are people putting poor scores into the system and getting higher HCs” cheats.
		
Click to expand...

I’ve gone from 10.6 to 9.2 to 12.6 this year! 😲

That’s every round in bar a few were I know I’m not striking it well.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 28, 2021)

Have to say, I agree with @nickjdavis 's assessment, I dont think deliberate manipulation is happening any more than previously.  

But do think that the effect on comps is pretty clear.  As @Kaz and @azazel pointed out, the widening gap in handicaps and increased winning scores, not makes it harder for the good improving golfer to win anything.  I've noticed the difference in the order of merit at our club.  It used to be lead every year by, regular practicing, try hard, consistent golfers.  This year its a random cross section of the club with none of the usual suspects.  Its regularly golfers coming off a bad spell whos handicap has jumped up.  Even scratch golfers who are now off 3 - 3 shots is the difference between a 39 and a 42, it makes a big difference!  

Its probably the likely outcome, we didnt need a whs, nobody I know has played competitive handicap golf across the world.

Even if they did, it's still not even the same system in the home nations, never mind the world over.

And the chosen system, the us version, is the handicap system which had the least exposure to competitive play.  Most americans play zero competitive rounds - why - all the comps are won by sandbagging cheats.  

I cant help but think we're on the path to join them.   If my club would let me play off the back tees in regular play, there's no way I'd pay an entry fee...


----------



## Old Skier (Aug 28, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Have to say, I agree with @nickjdavis 's assessment, I dont think deliberate manipulation is happening any more than previously. 

But do think that the effect on comps is pretty clear.  As @Kaz and @azazel pointed out, the widening gap in handicaps and increased winning scores, not makes it harder for the good improving golfer to win anything.  I've noticed the difference in the order of merit at our club.  It used to be lead every year by, regular practicing, try hard, consistent golfers.  This year its a random cross section of the club with none of the usual suspects.  Its regularly golfers coming off a bad spell whos handicap has jumped up.  Even scratch golfers who are now off 3 - 3 shots is the difference between a 39 and a 42, it makes a big difference! 

Its probably the likely outcome, we didnt need a whs, nobody I know has played competitive handicap golf across the world.

Even if they did, it's still not even the same system in the home nations, never mind the world over.

And the chosen system, the us version, is the handicap system which had the least exposure to competitive play.  Most americans play zero competitive rounds - why - all the comps are won by sandbagging cheats. 

I cant help but think we're on the path to join them.   If my club would let me play off the back tees in regular play, there's no way I'd pay an entry fee...
		
Click to expand...

I can't understand why clubs and there committees havnt done anything about sorting there comps out. The software used today allows for any amount of Divs and formats yet we continue to here that a single HIs is being used.

Showes lack of amity and understanding from committees and members.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 28, 2021)

Jamesbrown said:



			I’ve gone from 10.6 to 9.2 to 12.6 this year! 😲

That’s every round in bar a few were I know I’m not striking it well.
		
Click to expand...

Would you have done that in the past too, or is it only with the WHS and bad rounds potentially having a bigger upward drive on handicap that you have started doing it ?
Do we need to realign expectations on greater handicap variability rather than the stableish numbers we were used to?


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 28, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			the widening gap in handicaps and increased winning scores, not makes it harder for the good improving golfer to win anything.  I've noticed the difference in the order of merit at our club.  It used to be lead every year by, regular practicing, try hard, consistent golfers.
		
Click to expand...

Thats a good thing though. The goal of the handicap system is that everyone start with an equal chance. Improving golfers or those practicing hard and so putting in a better than previous round were effectively buckers of that system. They started with an golfing skill not fully reflected in their handicap.
So if what you say is the case, then the WHS would seem superior to Congu, and that handicaps are now more likely reflective of a players form as they step onto the first tee rather than lagging and so giving them an initial advantage over the field.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 28, 2021)

Old Skier said:



			I can't understand why clubs and there committees havnt done anything about sorting there comps out. The software used today allows for any amount of Divs and formats yet we continue to here that a single HIs is being used.

Showes lack of amity and understanding from committees and members.
		
Click to expand...

Probably not practical to play in Divisions for board competitions.

I suppose if handicaps were fair for all golfers, divisions would not be necessary


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 28, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			Thats a good thing though. The goal of the handicap system is that everyone start with an equal chance. Improving golfers or those practicing hard and so putting in a better than previous round were effectively buckers of that system. They started with an golfing skill not fully reflected in their handicap.
So if what you say is the case, then the WHS would seem superior to Congu, and that handicaps are now more likely reflective of a players form as they step onto the first tee rather than lagging and so giving them an initial advantage over the field.
		
Click to expand...

What makes you think improving golfers do not have an advantage under WHS?


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Aug 28, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Have to say, I agree with @nickjdavis 's assessment, I dont think deliberate manipulation is happening any more than previously. 

But do think that the effect on comps is pretty clear.  As @Kaz and @azazel pointed out, the widening gap in handicaps and increased winning scores, not makes it harder for the good improving golfer to win anything.  I've noticed the difference in the order of merit at our club.  It used to be lead every year by, regular practicing, try hard, consistent golfers.  This year its a random cross section of the club with none of the usual suspects.  Its regularly golfers coming off a bad spell whos handicap has jumped up.  Even scratch golfers who are now off 3 - 3 shots is the difference between a 39 and a 42, it makes a big difference! 

Its probably the likely outcome, we didnt need a whs, nobody I know has played competitive handicap golf across the world.

Even if they did, it's still not even the same system in the home nations, never mind the world over.

And the chosen system, the us version, is the handicap system which had the least exposure to competitive play.  Most americans play zero competitive rounds - why - all the comps are won by sandbagging cheats. 

I cant help but think we're on the path to join them.   If my club would let me play off the back tees in regular play, there's no way I'd pay an entry fee...
		
Click to expand...

I had a look at the winning scores in our club this year compared to last year. 

From 30 odd comps played the average winning handicap this year is 18.5.

From 30 odd comps last year the average winning handicap was 14.3.

I don't suspect any handicap manipulation just golfers rediscovering their form and having a few extra shots to play with.

I'm paying my entry fee tomorrow so I can play off the white tees


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 28, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			What makes you think improving golfers do not have an advantage under WHS?
		
Click to expand...

I am not sure they dont, just commenting on sweaty socks view on it, and I think it is probably somewhat correct. The moving average probably does track the improving golfer better than a big bang type adjustment after a single CSS busting score that we were used to. So limiting the advantage/handicap error, that the improving golfer is likely to tee up with.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 28, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			What makes you think improving golfers do not have an advantage under WHS?
		
Click to expand...

Improving golfers will always have an advantage. Significantly, WHS catches up with them faster than UHS did. More importantly, WHS catches up with declining golfers whereas UHS almost never did.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 28, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			I am not sure they dont, just commenting on sweaty socks view on it, and I think it is probably somewhat correct. The moving average probably does track the improving golfer better than a big bang type adjustment after a single CSS busting score that we were used to. So limiting the advantage/handicap error, that the improving golfer is likely to tee up with.
		
Click to expand...

The point i was trying to make, was that rather than just a one off random comp, the order of merit rewards consistantly playing to your handicap.  So under congu, 36 and 37 piints would get you top 20's that would be worth some OOM points.  At our club there were 4 or 5 players, who take regular lessons, are constantly on the range, and steadily improve.  They would always be at the sharp end of the order of merit. 

For me, those are the players any handicap system should reward.

This year, their handicaps have plummeted, and some huge scores from the once a week brigade whos playing handicaps are 5 or 6 higher have meant the order of merit is not as refective of effort as it once was.

I could be wrong, its the first season we've had whs, so not much data.  But as per my original post, its taken away the thril of competition for me...


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 28, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			The point i was trying to make, was that rather than just a one off random comp, the order of merit rewards consistantly playing to your handicap.  So under congu, 36 and 37 piints would get you top 20's that would be worth some OOM points.  At our club there were 4 or 5 players, who take regular lessons, are constantly on the range, and steadily improve.  They would always be at the sharp end of the order of merit.

For me, those are the players any handicap system should reward.

This year, their handicaps have plummeted, and some huge scores from the once a week brigade whos playing handicaps are 5 or 6 higher have meant the order of merit is not as refective of effort as it once was.

I could be wrong, its the first season we've had whs, so not much data.  But as per my original post, its taken away the thril of competition for me...
		
Click to expand...

I am not necessarily saying your view of what a handicap system might be is incorrect, but it is certainly not what WHS or UHS are designed to be, so it is not really fair to criticise them for failing to achieve something that is not their goal.


The handicap system doesnt aim to reward anyone - but that everyone should be rewarded, as you put it, equally.
Let alone reward effort - it rewards good play versus ones own standard game. Effort is not the scoring measure of golf. 
OOM is beside the issue of handicaps - you can structure points per position, and how many positions to give points to, as you want.
Steady impovement only goes so far. No one improves for ever. And the handicap system, either of them, has the stated purpose of detecting any improvement as quickly and accurately as possibly, and nullifying it by the appropriate handicap reduction.
The thrill of competition is surely only valid if the playing field is level. Not by having it stacked in favour of some more than others.


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 29, 2021)

I sometimes play with a guy that was on the R&A rules committee,  he told us that the main point was to bring down the handicaps of elite players in line with the US to allow the uk players a better chance of getting into elite comps as the US system meant their elite players had lower handicaps. I suppose in that aspect the Whs has succeeded.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 29, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			I sometimes play with a guy that was on the R&A rules committee,  he told us that the main point was to bring down the handicaps of elite players in line with the US to allow the uk players a better chance of getting into elite comps as the US system meant their elite players had lower handicaps. I suppose in that aspect the Whs has succeeded.
		
Click to expand...

Nice conspiracy theory, but it doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 29, 2021)

Kaz said:



			I've said it before but worth repeating that the shift of emphasis from ability to recent form is, IMO, the big problem. You now have the situation where players are capable of playing far better than their handicap whereas, previously, playing to your handicap was you on a good day.

The goal of the handicap system should be that any time you're playing well (by your own standards) you should be competitive against any opponent. The old system only failed in that regard when the handicap gap was massive. The new system, in my experience, just doesn't achieve that goal at all.
		
Click to expand...

Thats fair comment, but the move to recent form also has the benefit of tracking improvers better than the old system, which required a CSS beating scores to start cutting them. It didnt catch what could still be improvements lower than that. WHS will start nibbling the handicap even if scores start improving slightly, or a steadier average pattern is emerging. SOmeone putting in a steady run of 32-36 points will likely now get cut, reflecting that improvement. Previously, with the emphasis on best, it would more likely not happen until they put in one envelope pushing card. And in this sense the old system failed, as people who might well have been playing well by their own standards, had a decent chance of being beaten by a player who doesnt even need to play well by their standard - but whose standard has changed recently but that isnt reflected yet in the handicap.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 29, 2021)

saving_par said:



			I had a look at the winning scores in our club this year compared to last year.

From 30 odd comps played the average winning handicap this year is 18.5.

From 30 odd comps last year the average winning handicap was 14.3.

I don't suspect any handicap manipulation just golfers rediscovering their form and having a few extra shots to play with.

I'm paying my entry fee tomorrow so I can play off the white tees 

Click to expand...

Did you compare the average handicap of all the entrants? You may find that this has also risen....in which case you would expect to see a rise in the handicaps of the winners (or at least those who are finishing in the top 5 places or thereabouts).


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 29, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Nice conspiracy theory, but it doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.
		
Click to expand...

No conspiracy theory at all, straight from someone on the R&A rules com.


----------



## stevek1969 (Aug 29, 2021)

For me its worked well , i work shifts and can't play comps at weekends a fair bit so the ability to General Play cards during the week has given me a true reflection of where my game is . And being a member of a place that has numerous course options with different slope ratings has worked well.  Like any new system people don't like change .


----------



## wjemather (Aug 29, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			No conspiracy theory at all, straight from someone on the R&A rules com.
		
Click to expand...

The notion that WHS was conceived with the intention of benefitting a very small number of "elite" British and Irish amateurs, the vast majority of whom held USGA handicaps (by virtue of attending college in the US) and would qualify for such events anyway, is pure fantasy.


----------



## patricks148 (Aug 29, 2021)

wjemather said:



			The notion that WHS was conceived with the intention of benefitting a very small number of "elite" British and Irish amateurs, the vast majority of whom held USGA handicaps (by virtue of attending college in the US) and would qualify for such events anyway, is pure fantasy.
		
Click to expand...

 which bit of UK based amateurs didn't you understand?

This peice of info came from someone who was on the R&A rules committee who reg was a referee at R & A events, you believe what you want, I'd believe him over some random guy off the internet


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 30, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Nice conspiracy theory, but it doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.
		
Click to expand...

Considering it's been widely said that the goal was to allow people playing in foreign countries the chance to compete equally, then it reinforces that entirely. 

And the only folks who ever played competitively abroad were the elite level players.


----------



## IanM (Aug 30, 2021)

The thread has gone past 350 posts and none of the scumbags who've pitched up at an Open, got 50 points and gone home with arms full of swag, have been in to say "thanks lots, lovely jubbly!!"

Not very grateful,  are they?


----------



## Rlburnside (Aug 30, 2021)

I’ve had 24 scores in for this year, not had many good rounds just a small cut early in season, last 7 rounds been 90 -95. adjusted gross ,h/c has stayed the same. 

Thought this new system was to reflect your current form more 🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## wjemather (Aug 30, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			which bit of UK based amateurs didn't you understand?

This peice of info came from someone who was on the R&A rules committee who reg was a referee at R & A events, you believe what you want, I'd believe him over some random guy off the internet
		
Click to expand...

As long as you realise what that means; i.e. that the handicap system was conceived solely for the benefit of <<1% of amateur golfers competing in non-handicap events.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 30, 2021)

wjemather said:



			As long as you realise what that means; i.e. that the handicap system was conceived solely for the benefit of <<1% of amateur golfers competing in non-handicap events. 

Click to expand...

Correct, that's basically what the governing bodies admitted to.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 30, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Correct, that's basically what the governing bodies admitted to.
		
Click to expand...

Provide evidence.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 30, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Provide evidence.
		
Click to expand...

They stated so at the time. And as said above an R&A official has confirmed the same. 

And of course, who were all these people who needed portable handicap indexes? Not joe bloggs who 99.99% of the time would never play with card in hand abroad, it was for the elite, it's clearly for the elite, and it was stated it was for the elite. I'm sorry you missed that being said at the time, but I'm really not going hunting for some obscure quote on google to satisfy your pig-headedness.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 30, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



*They stated so at the time.* And as said above an R&A official has confirmed the same.

And of course, who were all these people who needed portable handicap indexes? Not joe bloggs who 99.99% of the time would never play with card in hand abroad, it was for the elite, it's clearly for the elite, and it was stated it was for the elite. I'm sorry you missed that being said at the time, but I'm really not going hunting for some obscure quote on google to satisfy your pig-headedness.
		
Click to expand...

I do not recall, and can't find evidence of, any such statements; but if they did, I'm sure you won't have any problem providing links. I'm afraid second-hand hearsay attributed to someone not directly involved in the WHS project doesn't cut it.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2021)

I think common sense tells us all that the WHS project was not done for the purpose of a bunch of British golfers being able to play in elite amateur events in the states. Thats preposterous. All that would have needed was the USGA to agree to specifying a Congu handicap requirement for for events over there. Rather than the long a complicated process and change required for so much of the rest of the worlds golfers and associations, officials, volunteers, club members etc. Really, is this idea that it was for the benefit of elite British golfers just misplaced British exceptionalism gone utterly crazy ?


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 30, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			I think common sense tells us all that the WHS project was not done for the purpose of a bunch of British golfers being able to play in elite amateur events in the states. Thats preposterous. All that would have needed was the USGA to agree to specifying a Congu handicap requirement for for events over there. Rather than the long a complicated process and change required for so much of the rest of the worlds golfers and associations, officials, volunteers, club members etc. Really, is this idea that it was for the benefit of elite British golfers just misplaced British exceptionalism gone utterly crazy ?
		
Click to expand...




wjemather said:



			I do not recall, and can't find evidence of, any such statements; but if they did, I'm sure you won't have any problem providing links. I'm afraid second-hand hearsay attributed to someone not directly involved in the WHS project doesn't cut it.
		
Click to expand...


Ok, but if not elite amatuers, who else competes across the world against golfers of different  nationalities?  Definitely lesss than 1% of golfers.... and I distinctly remember that portable world wide handicap being the reason for the change...


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Ok, but if not elite amatuers, who else competes across the world against golfers of different  nationalities?  Definitely lesss than 1% of golfers.... and I distinctly remember that portable world wide handicap being the reason for the change...
		
Click to expand...

There would be far more expat/retired people from the UK playing golf in Portugal and Spain while also playing at home than elite golfers playing tournaments in the US. I have no numbers, but would guess orders of magnitude greater.


----------



## Backsticks (Aug 30, 2021)

The R&A :

*Why a World Handicap System?*
_Golf is a global sport, with a single set of playing Rules, a single set of equipment Rules and a single set of Rules of Amateur Status.  The missing link is handicapping, and after significant engagement and collaboration with the existing handicapping authorities and National Associations, it has been agreed that the time is right to bring the different handicap systems together._

That seems sensible.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 31, 2021)

wjemather said:



			I do not recall, and can't find evidence of, any such statements; but if they did, I'm sure you won't have any problem providing links. I'm afraid second-hand hearsay attributed to someone not directly involved in the WHS project doesn't cut it.
		
Click to expand...

You know when club officials were being invited to zoom meetings to discuss the changes? Well, then.

Now unfortunately I didn't make any recordings, so you'll just have to take it from me, others who have said it, and public utterances elsewhere, along with the clear point that this was a solution to a problem that didn't exist for 99.99% of the active golfing population, so why do you think there was a change?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 31, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Ok, but if not elite amatuers, who else competes across the world against golfers of different  nationalities?  Definitely lesss than 1% of golfers.... and I distinctly remember that portable world wide handicap being the reason for the change...
		
Click to expand...

You're correct, it was definitely put across as the main driver for the change 

And, tbf, the idea of one handicap system is perfectly fine, should have been long ago, but of course the USGA want things done their way, so we've largely got the American system, we've kept none of the superior UK system, and have just created an absolute mess


----------



## wjemather (Aug 31, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			You know when club officials were being invited to zoom meetings to discuss the changes? Well, then.

Now unfortunately I didn't make any recordings, so you'll just have to take it from me, others who have said it, and public utterances elsewhere, along with the clear point that this was a solution to a problem that didn't exist for 99.99% of the active golfing population, so why do you think there was a change?
		
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence then. Thanks for confirming.



Banchory Buddha said:



			You're correct, it was definitely put across as the main driver for the change

And, tbf, the idea of one handicap system is perfectly fine, should have been long ago, but of course the USGA want things done their way, so we've largely got the American system, we've kept none of the *superior *UK system, and have just created an absolute mess
		
Click to expand...

You mean simpler. In no way was it superior in providing equity (which is the most important thing for a handicap system) for golfers of widely varying abilities, especially those from different courses - only a system that incorporates Slope (or similar mechanism) can do that.


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 31, 2021)

patricks148 said:



			I sometimes play with a guy that was on the R&A rules committee,  he told us that the main point was to bring down the handicaps of elite players in line with the US to allow the uk players a better chance of getting into elite comps as the US system meant their elite players had lower handicaps. I suppose in that aspect the Whs has succeeded.
		
Click to expand...

 I had a thought about that and it does make me smile

From memory (I did not have a handicap then). The switch to the UHS system used for last few decades was originally bought in because UK handicaps were considered to be too low compared to Americans.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 31, 2021)

wjemather said:



			So you have no evidence then. Thanks for confirming.
		
Click to expand...

No there was evidence, your inability to pay attention is not my problem.


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 31, 2021)

I think I attended three different seminars in England during the period Feb 2018 until Feb/March 2020. The key summary slide as to the aims and objectives of the WHS was...

_Its purpose is to enable as many golfers as possible the opportunity to:

• Obtain and maintain a Handicap Index.

• Use their Handicap Index on any golf course around the world.

• Compete, or play recreationally, with anyone else on a fair and equal basis._

These points cover a multitude of scenarios....from folks with holiday homes abroad who can now have a handicap that follows them wherever they play, to folks wanting to compete against foreign golfers on an equitable basis, it also covers a group of blokes, either from the same club or different clubs in the UK, when they are on their jollies in Turkey/Portugal in allowing them to play off a handicap that is representative of what they need for the course/tees they are about to play off. 

At no time was anything about providing equity for Elite level golfers, mentioned in ANY meeting I attended in England. Maybe the Scottish Union put forward a different agenda.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 31, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			At no time was anything about providing equity for Elite level golfers, mentioned in ANY meeting I attended in England. Maybe the Scottish Union put forward a different agenda.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.todaysgolfer.co.uk/news-and-events/general-news/2020/april/new-golf-handicap-system/

"This will level the playing field and make it fair, *not just for the elite* player but for everybody who wants to play golf abroad and against other people"

Literally at the head of the agenda right there, the implication being designed for the "elite", but yeah it'll kinda work for you plebs as well. They just can't help themselves.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 31, 2021)

http://www.golfsouth.co.uk/world-handicap-set-for-roll-out-across-globe-in-2020-says-ra-and-usga/

_"One of the biggest anamolies in the UK comes when *elite *amateurs head to the USA on golf scholarships.

Their handicaps are effectively frozen while they are in the States because their scores do not count back home.

And with the number of home-based players with plus-handicaps growing each year, some find entering some of the *UK’s leading amateur events* – which are based on handicap rather than world rankings – more and more difficult.

And another consequence of that is some players will pick which events – or courses – they play to protect either their World Amateur Golf Ranking, or their handicap."_



Yup, nothing to do with looking after the elite 

The governing bodies in the UK are ALL about the elite, blazers, and that's it.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Aug 31, 2021)

Good piece here as well http://thethinendofthewedge.com/2018/05/whs-wtf/

And a good summation...

_"There is little doubt in my mind that the introduction of a WHS is entirely concerned with the top end of the playing of the game, and more particularly the standing of some of its administrators – “look what I’VE done” – than the genuine needs of our game worldwide."_


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 31, 2021)

Quick one, I've read you can play 10 holes and it counts towards your handicap, is that correct and do you just put no score in the computer afterwards? About to head out and we are going to put a score in but we won't get 18 finished I imagine.


----------



## sweaty sock (Aug 31, 2021)

Depends on your comittee, if theres a legitimate reason for playing less than 18 then you can have net pars to make up the 18.  No guidance ive seen on 'legitimate reason'.  

Otherwise its net double bogies....


----------



## nickjdavis (Aug 31, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Depends on your comittee, if theres a legitimate reason for playing less than 18 then you can have net pars to make up the 18.  No guidance ive seen on 'legitimate reason'. 

Otherwise its net double bogies....
		
Click to expand...

Rule 3.2 lists "fading light" as a reason for not completing a round.

As long as at least 10 holes are played then the unplayed holes will be scored as net par for each hole, plus one additional stroke for the first hole not played

If 14 holes are completed then the unplayed holes are scored as net par.

However, when entering the scores the player must be sure to register the holes as "not played" rather than just not enter a score.....otherwise the "computer" will register them as nett doubles.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 31, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			Quick one, I've read you can play 10 holes and it counts towards your handicap, is that correct and do you just put no score in the computer afterwards? About to head out and we are going to put a score in but we won't get 18 finished I imagine.
		
Click to expand...

In short, yes you can. However, there must be a valid reason for not playing the remaining holes (e.g. bad weather, fading light, injury, illness, hole closed).

If just playing 9 holes, then you can submit a 9-hole score.

If intending to play 18-holes but cannot then as long as 10 holes have been played, your score can be submitted for handicapping and it will be scaled up to 18-holes as follows:
If at least 10 holes have been played, net bogey is added for the first unplayed hole and net pars for the remainder​If at least 14 holes have been played, net pars are added for all the unplayed holes​
When putting your score into the computer, there should be an option to specify holes not played/started (as opposed to not scored). If not, then you will need to contact your committee to have your score corrected per the rules.



sweaty sock said:



			Depends on your comittee, if theres a legitimate reason for playing less than 18 then you can have net pars to make up the 18.  No guidance ive seen on 'legitimate reason'.

*Otherwise its net double bogies....*

Click to expand...

This is never an option. The score is either scaled up or deemed unacceptable for handicapping, with a Penalty Score also being an option for the committee if the reason is deemed invalid. Examples of legitimate reasons are listed in the rules (summarised above).


----------



## jim8flog (Aug 31, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			Quick one, I've read you can play 10 holes and it counts towards your handicap, is that correct and do you just put no score in the computer afterwards? About to head out and we are going to put a score in but we won't get 18 finished I imagine.
		
Click to expand...

 Our guideline is that players should not submit an intent to submit a General Play card if they are not going to complete 18 holes. 

There appears to be a bit of misconception about only playing 10 holes. The rule is

Where the minimum number of holes has been completed and *the reason for a
player not playing a hole is valid*, the player must use the following table to
produce an 18-hole score:

Starting a round knowing you will not be playing a full round is not a valid reason in my opinion.


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 31, 2021)

Thanks for the replies, we actually wanted to just play 9 holes but the option wasn't on the computer.


----------



## Wabinez (Aug 31, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			Thanks for the replies, we actually wanted to just play 9 holes but the option wasn't on the computer.
		
Click to expand...

just use the England golf app and submit a 9 hole score….


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 31, 2021)

Wabinez said:



			just use the England golf app and submit a 9 hole score….
		
Click to expand...

I tried that as well but couldn't find the 9 hole option, it defaulted to 18 holes and I couldn't change it.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 31, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			I tried that as well but couldn't find the 9 hole option, it defaulted to 18 holes and I couldn't change it.
		
Click to expand...

Your club, as far as I remember, need to set the system up to permit entry of 9 hole rounds. I suspect few have done so.


----------



## wjemather (Aug 31, 2021)

Beezerk said:



			I tried that as well but couldn't find the 9 hole option, it defaulted to 18 holes and I couldn't change it.
		
Click to expand...

Sounds like your club did not enter all their tee marker options (including 9-holes) when WHS was being configured 12+ months ago.

Your club will now need to follow England Golf's process for setting up their 9-hole options on the WHS system. Only then can the club configure the options on their system to enable score entry for handicapping; they will appear on the MyEG app automatically.


----------



## Beezerk (Aug 31, 2021)

Luckily the course was deserted and we managed to fly around and get all 18 in 🥵


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Aug 31, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Your club, as far as I remember, need to set the system up to permit entry of 9 hole rounds. I suspect few have done so.
		
Click to expand...

Our place isn't set up for 9 either. It's a real shame as I'd happily do casual rounds in an evening over that distance. I'm sure many others would do the same. Missed opportunity.


----------



## Swango1980 (Aug 31, 2021)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Our place isn't set up for 9 either. It's a real shame as I'd happily do casual rounds in an evening over that distance. I'm sure many others would do the same. Missed opportunity.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure it is a missed opportunity. I suspect most clubs didn't even know about it, probably still don't.

At my last club, run by an owner, I have no idea when club was assessed, nor was I in direct contact with England Golf, except for attending their workshop. One day, the Ratings certificate was sent across, system set up for whites and yellows (men), and reds (ladies). I was only then told to set up the corresponding ratings on Club V1 for the 18 hole courses.

We never received information about getting course rated for all genders of all tees, nor asked about setting up WHS and Club V1 for 9 hole rounds. It was only on these forums I later learnt these setting up the 9 hole rounds could be requested by the club.

So, it may he something you request to Committee. It may he something they haven't even considered, but would be easy enough to sort out if members wanted it.


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 1, 2021)

wjemather said:



			In short, yes you can. However, there must be a valid reason for not playing the remaining holes (e.g.* bad weather, fading light*, injury, illness, hole closed)

If just playing
		
Click to expand...

Have just read rule 3.2 and those listed are indeed the valid reasons!  Im shocked bad weather and fading light are included!


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 1, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Have just read rule 3.2 and those listed are indeed the valid reasons!  Im shocked bad weather and fading light are included!
		
Click to expand...

These are just examples, in which Committee can judge whether a decision is valid. Not absolutely definitive.

In other words, if there is a bit of drizzle or the wind picks up, it is not going to be considered valid by Committee that a player stops playing. However,  if a lightning storm comes in or greens become flooded, then that would be valid.

If it gets a bit cloudy, and therefore less bright, then it is not valid to stop playing. But, if round was much slower than expected, and it was pretty much dark for last few holes, it would be valid to stop playing and still have the preceding holes count towards handicap.

I agree with an earlier post. If a player tees off and registers for an 18 hole round, knowing 100% they will not get 18 holes complete, then I'd personally not consider that an Acceptable round. It seems a good idea if clubs were set up to allow players to sign in for 9 hole rounds


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 1, 2021)

Urghh, so the world handicapping ststem might not even be the same from club to club, depending on how your h/c view the weather....

I'm being facetious, I think,  this is probably a very rare occurrence....


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 1, 2021)

Wabinez said:



			just use the England golf app and submit a 9 hole score….
		
Click to expand...

 That only works if it is a measured 9 hole course and will therefore be on the Database.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 1, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			That only works if it is a measured 9 hole course and will therefore be on the Database.
		
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised that England Golf didn't ask for 9 hole courses, we had to submit 9 & 18 hole set ups in the Scottish Golf back end, I just assumed that was a standard thing to do.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 1, 2021)

On the other hand.....has the actual implementation of whs here not shown that the goal is to help high handicap golfers and not at all portability?

Portability is handled by the course rating.
Slope is a fine tune on top of that, to better adjust high handicappers versus low ones, not previously allowed for in the SSS system.

So by not implementing the course adjustment, no real easy course/ hard course correction is being made, which is a step back from sss/css, has been implemented. And by only implementing the slope correction, the higher your handicap, the bigger your gain in whs compared to the old system ?


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 1, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Urghh, so the world handicapping ststem might not even be the same from club to club, depending on how your h/c view the weather....

I'm being facetious, I think,  this is probably a very rare occurrence....
		
Click to expand...

I think you are. There has to be a valid reason not to play the full round. Unless you expect the computer to work out what a valid reason or not is, you need human beings to make that decision based on whatever evidence there is.

If a human on the handicap committee thinks it is acceptable to terminate a round early because there is a bit of drizzle, it would be right in questioning this decision. I wouldn't finger the blame towards WHS on that one


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 1, 2021)

Well I went up from 12.3 to 12.8 anyway, played absolutely awful golf 😳


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 1, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			On the other hand.....has the actual implementation of whs here not shown that the goal is to help high handicap golfers and not at all portability?

Portability is handled by the course rating.
Slope is a fine tune on top of that, to better adjust high handicappers versus low ones, not previously allowed for in the SSS system.

So by not implementing the course adjustment, no real easy course/ hard course correction is being made, which is a step back from sss/css, has been implemented. And by only implementing the slope correction, the higher your handicap, the bigger your gain in whs compared to the old system ?
		
Click to expand...

In comparison to CONGU handicaps, yes. Assuming the Slope was 113, and therefore the slope adjustment just cancels itself out, the Index would be based on the Gross Differential (Gross-CR). I'm assuming at such a course, in general Player Index values would be very close to their CONGU handicap before (with enough scores on their record)?

Therefore, as the slope goes beyond 113, higher handicappers will start getting more shots in comparison to lower handicappers. That was easily seen at my last course, slope 130 yellows and 133 whites, where single fig handicappers were on avg getting 0-1 shots back, and as you go up the handicaps towards 30+, they were getting 4 to 5 extra shots compared to before (all analysed players having 20 or more scores on their record)

So, I think you are right, higher handicappers have benefitted in comparison to the old system. Arguably, going to play a course with slope less than 113, the higher handicappers will start to lose out in the number of shots they gain relative to lower handicappers. However, I have rarely seen a course with a slope under 113, and when I have it is only just under 113.


----------



## rosecott (Sep 1, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I'm really surprised that England Golf didn't ask for 9 hole courses, we had to submit 9 & 18 hole set ups in the Scottish Golf back end, I just assumed that was a standard thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

The onus is on the club if they wish to play 9-hole qualifiers. All they need to do is make the request. It's only a paper exercise as England Golf already has all the necessary data.


----------



## nickjdavis (Sep 1, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I'm really surprised that England Golf didn't ask for 9 hole courses, we had to submit 9 & 18 hole set ups in the Scottish Golf back end, I just assumed that was a standard thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

Wouldn't work at our place.....you play 9 holes and you are about as far from the club house as its possible to get....and we are not a links course!!!! (actually the 8th tee is as far as you can get on foot but at least you can park your car nearby if you are unfortunate enough to draw the 8th on a shotgun start!!!)

Not sure they do ratings for a 13 hole course which, other than 17 and 18, is the closest green to the clubhouse.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 1, 2021)

We used to play 9 hole comps at our place from holes 8 to 16 and had that as a defined 9 hole course but not sure if that's still the case now we've moved to WHS.  9 hole comps weren't popular so we never did any more other than that one season a few years back now.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 1, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I'm really surprised that England Golf didn't ask for 9 hole courses, we had to submit 9 & 18 hole set ups in the Scottish Golf back end, I just assumed that was a standard thing to do.
		
Click to expand...

 Our 18 hole course is measured and rated for both 9s and I think this is pretty standard. We do not need either 9 to be on the EG database for qualifying scores as the course layout does not lend itself to be used for 9 holes scores. It is an out and back layout

However we do have a 9 hole course which is rated for 9 and 18 and this is used for qualifying scores and comps.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 1, 2021)

Kaz said:



			I struggle to decipher the 9 hole handicaps the SG app gives me.

On my home course - green tees my 18 hole handicap is 1, front 9 0, back 9 1 and that all sounds right.

But if I move back and play the white tees my 18 hole handicap is 2, front 9 2, back 9 3 which just doesn't make sense to me

Blue tees even worse.... 18 hole 2, front 9 3, back 9 4.... so I get two shots if I'm playing the whole course but 3 if I only play the front nine?


Am I missing something or is it a bug in the app do you think?
		
Click to expand...

Is the SG app telling you your CH or your PH for individual strokeplay?
I think they would be the same anyway, because of your low handicap, but I would still like to know which one is quoted by the app.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 1, 2021)

Kaz said:



			I struggle to decipher the 9 hole handicaps the SG app gives me.

On my home course - green tees my 18 hole handicap is 1, front 9 0, back 9 1 and that all sounds right.

But if I move back and play the white tees my 18 hole handicap is 2, front 9 2, back 9 3 which just doesn't make sense to me

Blue tees even worse.... 18 hole 2, front 9 3, back 9 4.... so I get two shots if I'm playing the whole course but 3 if I only play the front nine?


Am I missing something or is it a bug in the app do you think?
		
Click to expand...

Under CONGU's implementation of WHS, the 9-hole Course Handicap calculation includes the difference between the Course Rating and Par, whereas the 18-hole Course Handicap calculation does not. (Yes, it is ridiculous.)

I suspect that while your course par remains the same, the Course Rating increases significantly as you go back from green to white to blue tees; that will be why you are seeing such a difference in your Course Handicap.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 1, 2021)




----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 1, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Under CONGU's implementation of WHS, the 9-hole Course Handicap calculation includes the difference between the Course Rating and Par, whereas the 18-hole Course Handicap calculation does not. (Yes, it is ridiculous.)

I suspect that while your course par remains the same, the Course Rating increases significantly as you go back from green to white to blue tees; that will be why you are seeing such a difference in your Course Handicap.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. Aa you say, absolutely absurd. Meaning in the madness, or an oversight I wonder?


----------



## wjemather (Sep 1, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			I didn't know that. Aa you say, absolutely absurd. Meaning in the madness, or an oversight I wonder?
		
Click to expand...

With this, and a few other "options" that were chosen, CONGU prioritised continuity with how things worked under UHS over consistency, logic and ease of understanding.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 1, 2021)

If you play in a 9-hole comp, your differential is calculated as follows. (Warning: what follows is deeply disturbing)


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 1, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			Wouldn't work at our place.....you play 9 holes and you are about as far from the club house as its possible to get....and we are not a links course!!!! (actually the 8th tee is as far as you can get on foot but at least you can park your car nearby if you are unfortunate enough to draw the 8th on a shotgun start!!!)

Not sure they do ratings for a 13 hole course which, other than 17 and 18, is the closest green to the clubhouse.
		
Click to expand...

It didn't have to be sequential, you could specify your 9 hole course was for eg 1-4 + 13-18 or whatever


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 1, 2021)

Kaz said:



			I struggle to decipher the 9 hole handicaps the SG app gives me.

On my home course - green tees my 18 hole handicap is 1, front 9 0, back 9 1 and that all sounds right.

But if I move back and play the white tees my 18 hole handicap is 2, front 9 2, back 9 3 which just doesn't make sense to me

Blue tees even worse.... 18 hole 2, front 9 3, back 9 4.... so I get two shots if I'm playing the whole course but 3 if I only play the front nine?


Am I missing something or is it a bug in the app do you think?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah they are bonkers, but not a bug as explained by @*Voyager EMH *


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 1, 2021)

Just checked my best 8 from the last 20. Last comp was Dec 2020. Better than I thought, 4. Just need to get out there with the new irons I bought last week.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 2, 2021)

First handicap qualifying score for a while since the "course maintenance" wrote the greens off for a bit.
One shot worse than my 8th best score.
This would have been a +0.1 in the old system. Now - it has caused no increase. It might even kick in as my 8th best sometime early next year limiting any big rises to handicap.
So a useful score of differential 5.3 instead of a +0.1.
8th best is 4.5 and lowest is 1.0 giving a HI of 2.7
Good system.


----------



## IainP (Sep 2, 2021)

The following post is in the style of the radio programme 'fighting talk' (if familiar) - where's the tongue in cheek emoji 😏

_It may be called the WHS, but we all know really it's the USA handicap system. It all makes sense really, it's based on form which goes up & down. Play bad for a bit, gain a few shots and become competitive again. It's like American football really, the draft system is there to even out chances so every team has a chance of winning. Plus these inflated handicaps give rise to lower winning scores. It's like the PGA Tour, love a bit of -30 winning, now that's fun, none of this -4 grind out a score nonsense._

_#_the views in this post may be made up gibberish_ 😉🙃😁_


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 4, 2021)

Quick question...

I play a par 4 hole where I get one shot for my handicap. I take 9 shots.

I mark 9 down as my actual score, but my net score is 7. No more than double bogey, plus the shot towards my handicap. Is this correct?


----------



## richbeech (Sep 4, 2021)

Barking_Mad said:



			Quick question...

I play a par 4 hole where I get one shot for my handicap. I take 9 shots.

I mark 9 down as my actual score, but my net score is 7. No more than double bogey, plus the shot towards my handicap. Is this correct?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the most you can get is a net double bogey so that’s 6 plus the shot you get for the hole so 7. Doesn’t matter if you actually took 10 shots it will just go down as a 7 (*6)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 4, 2021)

richbeech said:



			Yes, the most you can get is a net double bogey so that’s 6 plus the shot you get for the hole so 7. Doesn’t matter if you actually took 10 shots it will just go down as a 7 (*6)
		
Click to expand...

Edit: I'm using the golfpad app and I've marked all my shots so it's rightly counted 9, but I guess I should just scrub some of them off and put it down as a 7, so it works out the net score correctly. 

Thanks! 

😕


----------



## wjemather (Sep 4, 2021)

Barking_Mad said:



			Quick question...

I play a par 4 hole where I get one shot for my handicap. I take 9 shots.

I mark 9 down as my actual score, but my net score is 7. No more than double bogey, plus the shot towards my handicap. Is this correct?
		
Click to expand...




Barking_Mad said:



			Thanks. Golfpad seems to be showing the wrong net scores and I just wanted to check!
		
Click to expand...

Your nett score on the hole is 8 (9 minus your stroke); it only gets adjusted to a 7 (i.e. nett double bogey) for handicapping.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 5, 2021)

Barking_Mad said:



			Edit: I'm using the golfpad app and I've marked all my shots so it's rightly counted 9, but I guess I should just scrub some of them off and put it down as a 7, so it works out the net score correctly.

Thanks!

😕
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely *not,* you put down the number of shots you took on the hole, the nett double bogey adjustment os for handicap purposes worked out by the computer afterwards.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 5, 2021)

Barking_Mad said:



			Edit: I'm using the golfpad app and I've marked all my shots so it's rightly counted 9, but I guess I should just scrub some of them off and put it down as a 7, so it works out the net score correctly.

Thanks!

😕
		
Click to expand...

You can only do this in a stableford comp,

When you reach the score at which you would score zero points in a stableford comp you do not need to write in any score or you can put in a 0 or NR it is all the same for handicap purposes. (You also do not need to complete the hole when you reach that point).


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 5, 2021)

I shot 80 off the whites yesterday but I only dropped from 15.6 to 15.0. Disappointing, I was hoping it would go to 14. Still a guessing game.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 5, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			I shot 80 off the whites yesterday but I only dropped from 15.6 to 15.0. Disappointing, I was hoping it would go to 14. Still a guessing game.
		
Click to expand...

Its completely logical. No guessing required.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 5, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Its completely logical. No guessing required. 

View attachment 38279

Click to expand...

Too much maffs involved. 🤦🏻‍♂️


----------



## IanM (Sep 5, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Its completely logical. No guessing required. 

View attachment 38279

Click to expand...

But not if your HI is capped


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 5, 2021)

IanM said:



			But not if your HI is capped 

Click to expand...

Yep. And exceptional score reduction. Flow chart just gives the basic outline. Lots more maffs involved in total to cover all eventualities.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 6, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Absolutely *not,* you put down the number of shots you took on the hole, the nett double bogey adjustment os for handicap purposes worked out by the computer afterwards.
		
Click to expand...

I think this was my confusion. I always put my total score but thought the app should put the score for handicap purposes and not just the net score.


----------



## wull (Sep 6, 2021)

I’ve just started playing again after being away for years, will be new to this system and have just submitted 3 cards and received my new handicap.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 7, 2021)

Barking_Mad said:



			I think this was my confusion. I always put my total score but thought* the app should put the score for handicap purposes* and not just the net score.
		
Click to expand...

It does, look at your handicap record, it will show any adjustments to your gross score for handicapping purposes.


----------



## banjofred (Sep 7, 2021)

I really haven't been paying attention to the details.....just letting things fall where they will as far as handicap calculations. But.....yesterday I put in a score from a social round.....I was on 7.2 and playing 8 at Knaresborough. It was an ok round and was 10 over. Wake up this morning and I'm dropped to 7.0 and on the graph they have it down as 8 over for yesterdays score. Mystery to me.....


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 7, 2021)

banjofred said:



			I really haven't been paying attention to the details.....just letting things fall where they will as far as handicap calculations. But.....yesterday I put in a score from a social round.....I was on 7.2 and playing 8 at Knaresborough. It was an ok round and was 10 over. Wake up this morning and I'm dropped to 7.0 and on the graph they have it down as 8 over for yesterdays score. Mystery to me.....
		
Click to expand...

Did you have any bad holes? They'd be rounded down to nett double bogey.


----------



## banjofred (Sep 7, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Did you have any bad holes? They'd be rounded down to nett double bogey.
		
Click to expand...

Just one double on the 2nd hole. A couple of birdies kept me at 39 on the front 9. 43 on the back with a lot of near pars...but only 2 pars with 7 bogies. Back 9 is harder.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 7, 2021)

banjofred said:



			I really haven't been paying attention to the details.....just letting things fall where they will as far as handicap calculations. But.....yesterday I put in a score from a social round.....I was on 7.2 and playing 8 at Knaresborough. It was an ok round and was 10 over. Wake up this morning and I'm dropped to 7.0 and on the graph they have it down as 8 over for yesterdays score. Mystery to me.....
		
Click to expand...

The graph shows Score Differentials, which are your standardised score relative to the Course Rating after taking Slope into account. The best 8 of your most recent 20 SDs are averaged to produce your Handicap Index.

For this round, your SD was 8.8, which must now be one of your best 8 and resulted in your HI coming down.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 7, 2021)

^^^^what he said. What is the score that is now your 21st? It should be higher than that 8.8 differential.


----------



## banjofred (Sep 7, 2021)

21st round was a stinker....not one that counted. 92.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 7, 2021)

banjofred said:



			I really haven't been paying attention to the details.....just letting things fall where they will as far as handicap calculations. But.....yesterday I put in a score from a social round.....I was on 7.2 and playing 8 at Knaresborough. It was an ok round and was 10 over. Wake up this morning and I'm dropped to 7.0 and on the graph they have it down as 8 over for yesterdays score. Mystery to me.....
		
Click to expand...

 In case you do not know how to work it out

Score Differential = (113 ÷Slope Rating) x (adjusted gross score –Course Rating – (0.5 x PCC adjustment))

Hence your score differential of  8.8

It is then simply a case of seeing if this differential has become one of your 8 knocking out a score which was higher in your previous 8. It does not have to be the the 21st.


----------



## Depreston (Sep 7, 2021)

nett 64 (gross 74) and a medal win gets me to 7.3

never thought i'd ever be good enough to get to single figures with my driving distance but a great short game has got me to my goal. 

next on the list is to break par.... have a feeling that will be one step too many  unless i have a growth spurt at 32 or hit the gym to gain 105-110 swing speed


----------



## wjemather (Sep 7, 2021)

Depreston said:



			nett 64 (gross 74) and a medal win gets me to 7.3

never thought i'd ever be good enough to get to single figures with my driving distance but a great short game has got me to my goal.

next on the list is to break par.... have a feeling that will be one step too many  unless i have a growth spurt at 32 or hit the gym to gain 105-110 swing speed
		
Click to expand...

The real challenge is to beat the Course Rating.

You can manipulate breaking par by finding an easy short course (i.e. one with a Course Rating that is many strokes under par, and maybe a sub-100 Slope Rating). There are a few courses local to me with a CR of more than 4 under par from some of the tees.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 7, 2021)

I put a card in yesterday...score diff of 10.5
The card that dropped off was a 14.6 and a non-counter 
I already had a 10.5 diff as one of my 8 and yesterday's card has replaced that as a counting score...
No change to handicap but why did the 2nd 10.5 replace the first 10.5 ..?
They are the worst scores of my best 8..
All I can think of is that the first 10.5 was shot from an index of 7.6 whereas the 2nd from an index of 7.0.
But if the score diff is the same.............???


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 7, 2021)

Imurg said:



			I put a card in yesterday...score diff of 10.5
The card that dropped off was a 14.6 and a non-counter
I already had a 10.5 diff as one of my 8 and yesterday's card has replaced that as a counting score...
No change to handicap but why did the 2nd 10.5 replace the first 10.5 ..?
They are the worst scores of my best 8..
All I can think of is that the first 10.5 was shot from an index of 7.6 whereas the 2nd from an index of 7.0.
But if the score diff is the same.............???
		
Click to expand...

It will keep the most recent one, as that will take the longest to drop off your last 20 rounds


----------



## Imurg (Sep 7, 2021)

Kaz said:



			Makes sense to keep the most recent score as the counting one?
		
Click to expand...

Could be.
That means that the new score may keep my index higher or lower than it should be..
If I'm putting in, say, a card a week then it'll take 5 months to drop off..if it was my best score but all the others are in the 14 or 15 range then I'd be a shot lower.

Oh well..if thats the way it is...


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 7, 2021)

Imurg said:



			Could be.
That means that the new score may keep my index higher or lower than it should be..
If I'm putting in, say, a card a week then it'll take 5 months to drop off..if it was my best score but all the others are in the 14 or 15 range then I'd be a shot lower.

Oh well..if thats the way it is...
		
Click to expand...

Why should it not work like that? Even if it kept your old 10.5 instead of your latest, as soon as that old 10.5 dropped out of your last 20, it would simply be replaced by your latest 10.5 (assuming you didn't have 8 scores that beat it anyway). So, why do you think it would come up with a different handicap index calculation?


----------



## banjofred (Sep 7, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			In case you do not know how to work it out

Score Differential = (113 ÷Slope Rating) x (adjusted gross score –Course Rating – (0.5 x PCC adjustment))

Hence your score differential of  8.8

It is then simply a case of seeing if this differential has become one of your 8 knocking out a score which was higher in your previous 8. It does not have to be the the 21st.
		
Click to expand...

I'll assume the computer know all, but.....

The score that got dropped was an 81, score diff 10.2, slope 135, hc at time was 7.3
The score that reduced my hc was an 82, score diff 8.8, slope 124, hc at was 7.2

So.... the score the got dropped was a *better score on a harder course*......  I guess I just can't be bothered to figure out why, although I would have thought a better score on a harder sloped course would have taken precedence over a worse score on an easier course.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 7, 2021)

banjofred said:



			I'll assume the computer know all, but.....

The score that got dropped was an 81, score diff 10.2, slope 135, hc at time was 7.3
The score that reduced my hc was an 82, score diff 8.8, slope 124, hc at was 7.2

So.... the score the got dropped was a *better score on a harder course*......  I guess I just can't be bothered to figure out why, although I would have thought a better score on a harder sloped course would have taken precedence over a worse score on an easier course.
		
Click to expand...

No, the 81 you scored was on a much easier course (or the Par was lower at least), the Course Rating was 68.8. Whereas you score of 82 was shot on a course with a course rating of 72.3 (i.e. on a course that is 3.5 shots "harder" than the course you shot 81).

You are confusing Slope Rating as the absolute difficulty of the course (many do). It is not, slope rating is only related to the relative difficulty of a course between low and high handicappers. Course Rating represents the absolute difficulty of a course.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Sep 7, 2021)

wjemather said:



			The real challenge is to beat the Course Rating.

You can manipulate breaking par by finding an easy short course (i.e. one with a Course Rating that is many strokes under par, and maybe a sub-100 Slope Rating). There are a few courses local to me with a CR of more than 4 under par from some of the tees.
		
Click to expand...

Or alternatively beat par on a big boys course where par is lower than course rating....

Anyway, well done Depreston 👏


----------



## banjofred (Sep 7, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			No, the 81 you scored was on a much easier course (or the Par was lower at least), the Course Rating was 68.8. Whereas you score of 82 was shot on a course with a course rating of 72.3 (i.e. on a course that is 3.5 shots "harder" than the course you shot 81).

You are confusing Slope Rating as the absolute difficulty of the course (many do). It is not, slope rating is only related to the relative difficulty of a course between low and high handicappers. Course Rating represents the absolute difficulty of a course.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## nickjdavis (Sep 7, 2021)

No more increases for me for another 9 rounds 

After Sundays medal, all of my best 8 are within my last 11 rounds...still that gives me plenty of opportunity to drag my index down before we hit winter . Lowest I ever was under Congu was 6.2...so a playing handicap of 6.....need to drag the index down to 5.9 in order to match my playing handicap of 2009....there's a target to aim for over the remaining months ( 8 comps realistically available to me, 11 if I took a few days off work)!!!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 8, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			It does, look at your handicap record, it will show any adjustments to your gross score for handicapping purposes.
		
Click to expand...

Hmm I'm very confused, probably missing something very obvious...

Recent round, hole was a par 4. I took a 9 which is the score I recorded. I had 1 shot for handicap purposes. My scorecard shows a net 8. That doesn't seem correct?


----------



## wjemather (Sep 8, 2021)

Barking_Mad said:



			Hmm I'm very confused, probably missing something very obvious...

Recent round, hole was a par 4. I took a 9 which is the score I recorded. I had 1 shot for handicap purposes. My scorecard shows a net 8. That doesn't seem correct?
		
Click to expand...

It was a nett 8.

It counts as a 7 for handicapping (adjusted to net double bogey), but it is still a nett 8.


----------



## banjofred (Sep 8, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			No, the 81 you scored was on a much easier course (or the Par was lower at least), the Course Rating was 68.8. Whereas you score of 82 was shot on a course with a course rating of 72.3 (i.e. on a course that is 3.5 shots "harder" than the course you shot 81).

You are confusing Slope Rating as the absolute difficulty of the course (many do). It is not, slope rating is only related to the relative difficulty of a course between low and high handicappers. Course Rating represents the absolute difficulty of a course.
		
Click to expand...

Have another question. Couple of brain errors on my part anyway...although I played well enough today that I'm likely to be dropped below 7 for tomorrow....yea!!

Before this week.....I was 7.2
Knaresborough is the harder course, but according to the hcp charts I had to play off 8.
Ripon is the easier course, but I got an extra shot with 9. 

Is there a reason why I get more shots on the easier course?


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Sep 8, 2021)

banjofred said:



			Have another question. Couple of brain errors on my part anyway...although I played well enough today that I'm likely to be dropped below 7 for tomorrow....yea!!

Before this week.....I was 7.2
Knaresborough is the harder course, but according to the hcp charts I had to play off 8.
Ripon is the easier course, but I got an extra shot with 9.

Is there a reason why I get more shots on the easier course?
		
Click to expand...

Higher slope?

Maybe the course raters deem the slope to be Higher and therefore a harder course.....


----------



## nickjdavis (Sep 8, 2021)

banjofred said:



			Is there a reason why I get more shots on the easier course?
		
Click to expand...

Ripon Slope is 135, Knaresborough is 128

Course Rating for Ripon is 70.1 but bogey rating is 95.1....so 25 shots harder for a bogey golfer
Knaresborough CR is 73.3 but the bogey rating is 97....so 23.7 shots harder for the bogey golfer

So yes...Knaresborough is a "harder course" but Ripon is "relatively more hard for a bogey golfer compared to a scratch golfer"....hence the higher slope and you get more shots....this may be due to course topography, narrowness of fairways, difficult carries on Ripon for bogey golfers who may hit it less distance. What is relatively an easier course for you as a single digit golfer might not be an easier course for a 20 handicapper.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 8, 2021)

banjofred said:



			Have another question. Couple of brain errors on my part anyway...although I played well enough today that I'm likely to be dropped below 7 for tomorrow....yea!!

Before this week.....I was 7.2
Knaresborough is the harder course, but according to the hcp charts I had to play off 8.
Ripon is the easier course, but I got an extra shot with 9.

Is there a reason why I get more shots on the easier course?
		
Click to expand...

The Course Handicap calculation only accounts for the difference in relative difficultly (Slope), not the absolute difficulty (Course Rating).

Ripon has a much higher Slope Rating than Knaresborough, so players are likely to get more strokes when playing there.

The Course Rating is accounted for when calculating the Score Differentials, the best 8 of your most recent 20 of which are averaged to produce your Handicap Index.


----------



## banjofred (Sep 8, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			Ripon Slope is 135, Knaresborough is 128

Course Rating for Ripon is 70.1 but bogey rating is 95.1....so 25 shots harder for a bogey golfer
Knaresborough CR is 73.3 but the bogey rating is 97....so 23.7 shots harder for the bogey golfer

So yes...Knaresborough is a "harder course" but Ripon is "relatively more hard for a bogey golfer compared to a scratch golfer"....hence the higher slope and you get more shots.
		
Click to expand...

I guess it makes sense......but......I think it is turning me into a drooling Homer Simpson


----------



## rulefan (Sep 8, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			So yes...Knaresborough is a "harder course"
		
Click to expand...

Just to make it absolutely clear, The Course Rating is calculated *specifically* for a Scratch Player. 

A Bogey Rating is calculated for a 22ish cap player. The difference is 'in effect' the Slope. This tells you how much more (or possibly less) difficult the course is for players with different Handicap Indices.


----------



## Rlburnside (Sep 9, 2021)

I’m starting to think the new system is worse for reflecting your current handicap. 
Something I thought was one of the benefits of WHS 

Seven out of eight of my last rounds would have resulted in .1 increases the other one I would have ‘ buffered yet under the new system my handicap has remained the same

Four of my scores that have dropped off we’re from last year which has impacted on the calculations for handicap. 

If I stopped playing at the end of summer (as many players do) I would always have scores dropping off from the previous year. 

Not so good if your a old duffer😂


----------



## nickjdavis (Sep 9, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Just to make it absolutely clear, The Course Rating is calculated *specifically* for a Scratch Player.

A Bogey Rating is calculated for a 22ish cap player. The difference is 'in effect' the Slope. This tells you how much more (or possibly less) difficult the course is for players with different Handicap Indices.
		
Click to expand...

That's why I highlighted the bogey ratings for each course so that folks could see that Knaresborough was relatively less difficult for a bogey golfer than Ripon.

I think many folk get fixated about CR and Slope and forgets about Bogey Rating....thinking that slope is some how another measure of difficulty of a golf course, rather than actually something that has been calculated based on how a bogey golfer is expected to perform, relative to a scratch player. Most folks here are aware but I'd hazard that a huge majority of golfers know nothing about the Bogey Rating.....if they were more aware of BR then perhaps they might understand slope a little bit better and thus why it isn't a measure of difficulty of a golf course.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 9, 2021)

Rlburnside said:



			I’m starting to think the new system is worse for reflecting your current handicap.
Something I thought was one of the benefits of WHS

Seven out of eight of my last rounds would have resulted in .1 increases the other one I would have ‘ buffered yet under the new system my handicap has remained the same
		
Click to expand...

 Under the UHS so if you started off at x.5, x.6 or x.7 add 7 x 0.1 and your handicap would remain the same.


----------



## Rlburnside (Sep 9, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			Under the UHS so if you started off at x.5, x.6 or x.7 add 7 x 0.1 and your handicap would remain the same.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure what UHS is but if it’s old system and you started off x.1-x.2-x.3-x.4 and x.8- x.9. and then added 7.1s  this would alter your handicap would it not?


----------



## banjofred (Sep 9, 2021)

nickjdavis said:



			That's why I highlighted the bogey ratings for each course so that folks could see that Knaresborough was relatively less difficult for a bogey golfer than Ripon.

I think many folk get fixated about CR and Slope and forgets about Bogey Rating....thinking that slope is some how another measure of difficulty of a golf course, rather than actually something that has been calculated based on how a bogey golfer is expected to perform, relative to a scratch player. Most folks here are aware but I'd hazard that a huge majority of golfers know nothing about the Bogey Rating.....if they were more aware of BR then perhaps they might understand slope a little bit better and thus why it isn't a measure of difficulty of a golf course.
		
Click to expand...

About the bogey players....probably correct. At Knaresborough there are no real dangers off the tee. If you hit a crap tee shot reasonably straight you are still alive. The front 9 at Ripon......a crap shot off the tee can lose a ball on 7 or 8 of them, with several easy chances to lose the ball on the back 9 as well. While Knaresborough is quite a bit longer, Ripon has more ball losing danger (on the front 9 mostly) and the greens in general are a LOT tougher than Knaresborough.

And I got dropped to 6.4 today.....made playing a fair bit more intimidating. Still managed 35 pts.....back 9 still a thorn in my side. I've decided to start submitting a LOT of my casual scores......makes the WHS handicap a lot more representative of current form. If you only put in comp scores......it takes quite a while to get 20 scores.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 9, 2021)

banjofred said:



			If you only put in comp scores......it takes quite a while to get 20 scores.
		
Click to expand...

But that was true of CONGU and the facility for casual scores was there before. As it happens the apps make it easier but they would have come with CONGU anyway.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 9, 2021)

Rlburnside said:



			Not sure what UHS is but if it’s old system
		
Click to expand...

It was. _Unified Handicap System_ was the official title. CONGU was/is the name of the organisation.


----------



## banjofred (Sep 9, 2021)

rulefan said:



			But that was true of CONGU and the facility for casual scores was there before. As it happens the apps make it easier but they would have come with CONGU anyway.
		
Click to expand...

It was just too much of a hassle to put in a supplement score before......now, really easy.....which means I'll do it a lot. Of course there will be the people who will find it easy to abuse it.....but according to some golfers, very few golfers cheat......hehehehehe. More than you would think......


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 12, 2021)

So prompted by a friend's question last night, I checked out how Open scores are affecting my handicap. (Gone from 5.3 to 7.0). Of my current 8 counting scores, 7 are from Opens. I play at least 1:1 open to medals, but as I play a few 36ers, and often Sat/Sun opens it's probably slightly over.

I've basically been a 6 handicap for the last 20 years, with briefs forays to 5, and very briefs terms at 4 & 7, but essentially a 6 on the low end.

So why have I crept up and now play off 7 or even 8 at times? Well now under WHS there's no buffer zone, for a 6 that's effectively 2 shots right there, there's no away CSS which was always invariably higher, and (imo) created a false handicap cut, especially for someone like me whose scores are baised towards Open events.

Taking both together really explains my more or less 2 shot gain of handicap this year. It doesn't mean I like the system any better, but it explains what's happened to me.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 12, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Well now under WHS there's no buffer zone,
		
Click to expand...

 A very significant point


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 12, 2021)

rulefan said:



 A very significant point
		
Click to expand...




Banchory Buddha said:



			So prompted by a friend's question last night, I checked out how Open scores are affecting my handicap. (Gone from 5.3 to 7.0). Of my current 8 counting scores, 7 are from Opens. I play at least 1:1 open to medals, but as I play a few 36ers, and often Sat/Sun opens it's probably slightly over.

I've basically been a 6 handicap for the last 20 years, with briefs forays to 5, and very briefs terms at 4 & 7, but essentially a 6 on the low end.

So why have I crept up and now play off 7 or even 8 at times? Well now under WHS there's no buffer zone, for a 6 that's effectively 2 shots right there, there's no away CSS which was always invariably higher, and (imo) created a false handicap cut, especially for someone like me whose scores are baised towards Open events.

Taking both together really explains my more or less 2 shot gain of handicap this year. It doesn't mean I like the system any better, but it explains what's happened to me.
		
Click to expand...

Likewise.

I was 8 for years until WHS but very quickly had a CH round my own track of 10.  On reflection it became obvious why.  I was very good at playing to the buffer, usually bang on 10 - but less good at playing to 8 or better.  When I accumulated a few +0.1s I would usually manage to find one or two decent rounds under h/cap to pull myself back.

So in truth on reflection my golf has probably been 10handicap for a good few years, and I had become a bit of a SF h/cap ‘snob’.  Given that realisation and acceptance of it, I am very comfortable with how WHS is working for me and reflecting my current transitional state ( as I rebuild my swing).


----------



## NorfolkShaun (Sep 12, 2021)

Noticed a funny one for me, I have hit the soft cap for some odd reason WHS has my handicap as 10.5 for eight rounds (over 14 months due to lockdowns)

with my current handicap 14.2 I cannot clear the soft cap until April 2022.

seems weird to me there is this extended period of my handicap not changing even 0.1. Anyone come across this?


----------



## moogie (Sep 12, 2021)

NorfolkShaun said:



			Noticed a funny one for me, I have hit the soft cap for some odd reason WHS has my handicap as 10.5 for eight rounds (over 14 months due to lockdowns)

with my current handicap 14.2 I cannot clear the soft cap until April 2022.

seems weird to me there is this extended period of my handicap not changing even 0.1. Anyone come across this?
		
Click to expand...


I thought it did still change
But in half the increments it would normally be.....??

1 of my playing partners is in same situation,  but still changing his index


----------



## NorfolkShaun (Sep 12, 2021)

moogie said:



			I thought it did still change
But in half the increments it would normally be.....??

1 of my playing partners is in same situation,  but still changing his index
		
Click to expand...

my current is handicap changing but on soft cap

But the soft cap is based against the period where my handicap did not change for eight rounds. Due to lockdown I have to wait till April next year for the soft cap point to move.



seems odd how I can have such a long period with no change something seems wrong. Hopefully image attached makes sense


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 12, 2021)

Just looking through an opponents handicap record. Looks manipulated to me with the 2 lowest scores being pushed out of the 20, and some huge numbers added in their place . I struggle with the authenticity of this record and I think it’s clearly been manipulated … the system looks to be no better than the old system in this regard and the chap just puts a couple of bad cards in to remove the good ones and gains at least 4 strokes. As the best ones he has are 7 to 10 shots worse. Then looking at it he is due to replace these with 2 more rounds and the lowest will be 6 more shot higher …


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 12, 2021)

NorfolkShaun said:



			my current is handicap changing but on soft cap

But the soft cap is based against the period where my handicap did not change for eight rounds. Due to lockdown I have to wait till April next year for the soft cap point to move.

View attachment 38447

seems odd how I can have such a long period with no change something seems wrong. Hopefully image attached makes sense
		
Click to expand...


The image does not make sense in some respect as it only shows one score in 2021.

Soft and hard caps are done on a rolling 365 day basis i.e your low index as at 365 days previous, not on the date of any given score other than an initial one which triggers the cap (if you follow).


----------



## NorfolkShaun (Sep 12, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			The image does not make sense in some respect as it only shows one score in 2021.

Soft and hard caps are done on a rolling 365 day basis i.e your low index as at 365 days previous, not on the date of any given score other than an initial one which triggers the cap (if you follow).
		
Click to expand...

ahh sorry, there are more scores to bring up to date but the image is all the 10.5 rounds and where there was a fluctuating index either side. Then there are 14 rounds since not showing with movement from the 18th April round at 11.1 to current date where I am 14.2 soft cap adjusted. The 2021 is the first qualifying round since lockdown.

with Congo you would be very unlikely to hit buffer for eight qualifying rounds, with WHS there is no buffer but this shows no change for eight rounds, just seems really odd.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 12, 2021)

NorfolkShaun said:



			with Congo you would be very unlikely to hit buffer for eight qualifying rounds, with WHS there is no buffer but this shows no change for eight rounds, just seems really odd.
		
Click to expand...

Under the UHS I spent around 10 years with no significant change in my handicap varied between 5.5 and 6.4 so no real difference back then for me.

With the WHS (except for one significantly bad period, return after lockdown) my H.I has only varied by just over one shot.


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

So yesterday didn’t sit right with me so I went off and calculated this guys handicap if his 8 lowest scores were used. The 20 cards window is being used to hide or remove low scores. There was a 6 shot deficit from current and what should be. 
I am afraid the system is no stronger than the one it replaces .. 
If I was unscrupulous I could add a few more poor cards in and jump up quite nicely, but my morals prevent me from doing so. 
Lesson learned though don’t bother playing competitions until the system has got a solution.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			So yesterday didn’t sit right with me so I went off and calculated this guys handicap if his 8 lowest scores were used. The 20 cards window is being used to hide or remove low scores. There was a 6 shot deficit from current and what should be.
I am afraid the system is no stronger than the one it replaces ..
If I was unscrupulous I could add a few more poor cards in and jump up quite nicely, but my morals prevent me from doing so.
Lesson learned though don’t bother playing competitions until the system has got a solution.
		
Click to expand...

WHS is always a system that would be open to more abuse for getting handicaps to go upwards. It had to be, one of the selling points was that in the old system handicaps did not go up quick enough. So, by definition, creating a system that allows handicaps to go up quicker will open it up to being abused for those that want their handicaps as high as possible. The main hope is "players won't do that", which is obviously naive, given the hundreds of stories on this forum alone that has provided examples of such players.

I had a bad round on Saturday and my Index went up 0.5 (it would have gone up the same amount even if it was a mediocre round). So, depending on what a players historical scores are, they could quickly get juice increases if they could submit a few rounds and remove several from their top 8. The skill will be for such players to time their score entry, so that they get the biggest increase immediately prior to entering their biggest event(s) of the year.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			So yesterday didn’t sit right with me so I went off and calculated this guys handicap if his 8 lowest scores were used. The 20 cards window is being used to hide or remove low scores. There was a 6 shot deficit from current and what should be.
I am afraid the system is no stronger than the one it replaces ..
If I was unscrupulous I could add a few more poor cards in and jump up quite nicely, but my morals prevent me from doing so.
Lesson learned though don’t bother playing competitions until *the system has got a solution*.
		
Click to expand...

There is no automatic solution, and there is never likely to be. The handicap system is a peer review system, which means all golfers have responsibility for maintaining the integrity of it. If you believe anyone is acting unscrupulously, you need to fulfil your responsibilities and submit a report/complaint to the relevant handicap committee.


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			There is no automatic solution, and there is never likely to be. The handicap system is a peer review system, which means all golfers have responsibility for maintaining the integrity of it. If you believe anyone is acting unscrupulously, you need to fulfil your responsibilities and submit a report/complaint to the relevant handicap committee.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I have been considering that. But to be honest I will be accused of being a sore loser. So I will step back and let everyone enjoy the possibilities that could occur. 
But it’s good to know that if you can just view the handicap records you can identify the bandits.. I think match play competitions are fun , but they are the obvious victims of this behaviour. The normal competitions are just not worth the effort required and a good score stays on unless you can put in 3 general play cards a week over the summer period to go up for the next big competition


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 13, 2021)

Is anyone aware of the number of casual rounds and how it compared to the old supplementary rounds (I naively assume its exploded, but have zero evidence).

I played with a guy yesterday who signed in, asked me to mark his card, which I was happy to do, until he picked up his ball on the first after declaring his 2 footer a gimme!?

Quite shocked, I reminded him he was playing for his handicap, and kind of apologised I was writing down no score on the first... but he was adamant in the new system gimmies were fine in casual rounds and his normal group had been doing it all year.

Obviously with 17 holes to play I was keen not to fall out, and was releived when he agreed to just putt out for the rest of the round. 

Anyone else had this!? (I hope its a one off, though am nearly certain itll be gimmies all round again when hes with his normal group...)

He wasnt a particularly low handicapper, and in his defence his handicap was reflective of his ability... but still...


----------



## wjemather (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Yes I have been considering that. But to be honest I will be accused of being a sore loser. So I will step back and let everyone enjoy the possibilities that could occur.
But it’s good to know that if you can just view the handicap records you can identify the bandits.. I think match play competitions are fun , but they are the obvious victims of this behaviour. The normal competitions are just not worth the effort required and a good score stays on unless you can put in 3 general play cards a week over the summer period to go up for the next big competition
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's just nowhere near good enough. If you believe there is an issue, you have a responsibility to report it and not be part of the problem.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 13, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Is anyone aware of the number of casual rounds and how it compared to the old supplementary rounds (I naively assume its exploded, but have zero evidence).

I played with a guy yesterday who signed in, asked me to mark his card, which I was happy to do, until he picked up his ball on the first after declaring his 2 footer a gimme!?

Quite shocked, I reminded him he was playing for his handicap, and kind of apologised I was writing down no score on the first... but he was adamant in the new system gimmies were fine in casual rounds and his normal group had been doing it all year.

Obviously with 17 holes to play I was keen not to fall out, and was releived when he agreed to just putt out for the rest of the round.

Anyone else had this!? (I hope its a one off, though am nearly certain itll be gimmies all round again when hes with his normal group...)

He wasnt a particularly low handicapper, and in his defence his handicap was reflective of his ability... but still...
		
Click to expand...

Yes, casual rounds are massively up on supplementaries - up from one or two, to over 50 per week at our club.

His handicap committee need to be made aware so they can re-educate everyone.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 13, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Is anyone aware of the number of casual rounds and how it compared to the old supplementary rounds (I naively assume its exploded, but have zero evidence).

I played with a guy yesterday who signed in, asked me to mark his card, which I was happy to do, until he picked up his ball on the first after declaring his 2 footer a gimme!?

Quite shocked, I reminded him he was playing for his handicap, and kind of apologised I was writing down no score on the first... but he was adamant in the new system gimmies were fine in casual rounds and his normal group had been doing it all year.

Obviously with 17 holes to play I was keen not to fall out, and was releived when he agreed to just putt out for the rest of the round.

Anyone else had this!? (I hope its a one off, though am nearly certain itll be gimmies all round again when hes with his normal group...)

He wasnt a particularly low handicapper, and in his defence his handicap was reflective of his ability... but still...
		
Click to expand...

Loads of guys at my place are doing gimmies and sticking rounds in. Not sure why they think they can, but they do! 

Not my approach, I've missed plenty of gimmies in my time so if playing for handicap I hole out. Only time I take a gimmie is practise rounds when I just cba to putt.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 13, 2021)

Bdill93 said:



			Loads of guys at my place are doing gimmies and sticking rounds in. Not sure why they think they can, but they do!

Not my approach, I've missed plenty of gimmies in my time so if playing for handicap I hole out. Only time I take a gimmie is practise rounds when I just cba to putt.
		
Click to expand...

Again, your handicap committee needs to be made aware so they can educate everyone.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Again, your handicap committee needs to be made aware so they can educate everyone.
		
Click to expand...

Oh they know


----------



## HampshireHog (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Yes I have been considering that. But to be honest I will be accused of being a sore loser. So I will step back and let everyone enjoy the possibilities that could occur.
But it’s good to know that if you can just view the handicap records you can identify the bandits.. I think match play competitions are fun , but they are the obvious victims of this behaviour. The normal competitions are just not worth the effort required and a good score stays on unless you can put in 3 general play cards a week over the summer period to go up for the next big competition
		
Click to expand...

You haven’t really provided any reason as to why you think this was a case of handicap manipulation.

Form goes up and down and good scores will drop out.  What specifically makes you suspicious that they are actively managing their handicap odd patterns in general play score cards?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Yes, casual rounds are massively up on supplementaries - up from one or two, to over 50 per week at our club.
.
		
Click to expand...

We've gone from one or two a month, to one or two a week.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 13, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			You haven’t really provided any reason as to why you think this was a case of handicap manipulation.

Form goes up and down and good scores will drop out.  What specifically makes you suspicious that they are actively managing their handicap odd patterns in general play score cards?
		
Click to expand...

My best score dropped off 3 weeks ago, I wasnt even getting close to it. Since then ive carded a lowest ever score and my second lowest ever.

Sometimes weird stuff just happens!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 13, 2021)

Bdill93 said:



			Loads of guys at my place are doing gimmies and sticking rounds in. Not sure why they think they can, but they do!

Not my approach, I've missed plenty of gimmies in my time so if playing for handicap I hole out. Only time I take a gimmie is practise rounds when I just cba to putt.
		
Click to expand...

I can't get my head round why they would think this is correct? It just further emphasizes the farce that it is.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			There is no automatic solution, *and there is never likely to be*. The handicap system is a peer review system, which means all golfers have responsibility for maintaining the integrity of it. If you believe anyone is acting unscrupulously, you need to fulfil your responsibilities and submit a report/complaint to the relevant handicap committee.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe not an automatic solution, but I can't see WHS in its current form lasting more than a couple of years, the complaints are too many for the authorities to sit back slapping themselves on the back. It'll be tweeked (probably in a very small way), it still won't be as good as UHS, but it'll be their "solution"


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 13, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I can't get my head round why they would think this is correct? It just further emphasizes the farce that it is.
		
Click to expand...

Honestly not sure. Theres never been anything to suggest that it would be acceptable. 

I suppose its the casual round element, they obviously adhere to rules in comps - pretty strict on rules in comps at our place!


----------



## HampshireHog (Sep 13, 2021)

Bdill93 said:



			My best score dropped off 3 weeks ago, I wasnt even getting close to it. Since then ive carded a lowest ever score and my second lowest ever.

Sometimes weird stuff just happens!
		
Click to expand...

That’s my point good scores go eventually.  That’s how the system works.  At my ability things like work stress and minor aches and pains can affect my form if is ongoing.  Fully, accept that if someone only bangs a load of general play scores after a good round that is suspicious.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 13, 2021)

Bdill93 said:



			Honestly not sure. Theres never been anything to suggest that it would be acceptable.

I suppose its the casual round element, they obviously adhere to rules in comps - pretty strict on rules in comps at our place!
		
Click to expand...

It is the sort of thing that would happen regardless of the handicap system in place. Just having more of an impact now as many more golfers are sticking in general play rounds.

At my new club, I have also heard roll up groups play gimmes and hand in cards (a group of us joined from my old club, and one of the group told me this after playing in the roll up, he was quite shocked as well). Another roll up group have an agreement they'll only hand in scores if a player shoots 38 points or more. This is the sort of behaviour that happens when you permit scores from social golf to be entered for handicap. It is not malicious behaviour 99% of the time. It is just a more relaxed, unofficial, "this is the way we do things" attitude, compared to the more official, organised, formal feel of a competition. Clubs can better educate players and hopefully make things better. But, it is not going to eliminate many of these issues, as many players, for example, will never ditch a habit of a life time and suddenly not play gimmes.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			If I was unscrupulous I could add a few more poor cards in and jump up quite nicely, but my morals prevent me from doing so.
Lesson learned though don’t bother playing competitions until the system has got a solution.
		
Click to expand...




Swango1980 said:



			So, depending on what a players historical scores are, they could quickly get juice increases if they could submit a few rounds and remove several from their top 8. The skill will be for such players to time their score entry, so that they get the biggest increase immediately prior to entering their biggest event(s) of the year.
		
Click to expand...


Until a player the reaches the hard cap.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			The 20 cards window is being used to hide or remove low scores. 
.
		
Click to expand...


 interested to know what you mean by this.


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			You haven’t really provided any reason as to why you think this was a case of handicap manipulation.

Form goes up and down and good scores will drop out.  What specifically makes you suspicious that they are actively managing their handicap odd patterns in general play score cards?
		
Click to expand...

General play and ball striking, he opened with a 300 yard drive and 25 yard flick to the first. Played bladed irons, struck the ball cleanly from the rough with back spin to the green. 9 irons were flying in from 160+ yards, out of bunkers cleanly … it wasn’t a 15 handicapper‘s game. The opening statement was “I prefer match play because I can’t play 18 holes“ was a bit odd and the scoring record on the stableford competitions showing 6-7 blobs a round with a sprinkling of good rounds in the low 80s … it’s just the number of bad rounds and how they have removed his good scores. I give most people the benefit of the doubt, but the shots started flying into the flags and were always straight. Which made me start to think there was some dodgey stuff afoot. Hence going through his historical rounds.


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			interested to know what you mean by this.
		
Click to expand...

Your 8 best scores are taken from your last 20 rounds … put in a lot of rounds and the window moves, making a new set of 8 best scores. This guy moved his in 5 rounds from 8.3 to 13.5 on the index


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 13, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			Until a player the reaches the hard cap.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, that is the one condition. Although, an increase of up to 6 shots (on many courses based on typical slope) is still a nice boost to course handicap. And, if they could arguably inflate this year after year, unless they submit more good scores to get back down to their previous low index level.


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Sorry, that's just nowhere near good enough. If you believe there is an issue, you have a responsibility to report it and not be part of the problem.
		
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if others have commented or hold opinions … I don’t normally engage on these matters, I deal with it my way. I will keep an eye out but no more match play competitions


----------



## wjemather (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Your 8 best scores are taken from your last 20 rounds … put in a lot of rounds and the window moves, making a new set of 8 best scores. This guy moved his in 5 rounds from 8.3 to 13.5 on the index
		
Click to expand...

Hard cap is 5 above the low index. Assuming more than 20 scores on their record and the indexes given are recent, the increase you describe is not possible without intervention by a handicap secretary.

If they have very few scores, such movement is not unusual when a great round is submitted in the first few.


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 13, 2021)

Just did a quick calc....

In 7 rounds I could be off 5 shots higher (including the soft cap adjustments) it would only mean not playing to within 5 shots of my handicap which could happen without manipulation. If i only played in organised comps, I could play 7 times in 10 days.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 13, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			Just did a quick calc....

In 7 rounds I could be off 5 shots higher (including the soft cap adjustments)* it would only mean not playing to within 5 shots of my handicap which could happen without manipulation*. If i only played in organised comps, I could play 7 times in 10 days.
		
Click to expand...

Ive done this myself recently. Just had a bad couple of months. 7 scores submitted, none of which are "counting scores" but did push out my lowest round our of my best 8! Since replaced with an even better score and now at my lowest ever HI.


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 13, 2021)

Apologies 4 shots higher... not sure if my playing handicap may be 5 higher though, i doubt very much that my handicap committee would step in.  

Why may soon find out!!


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Hard cap is 5 above the low index. Assuming more than 20 scores on their record and the indexes given are recent, the increase you describe is not possible without intervention by a handicap secretary.

If they have very few scores, such movement is not unusual when a great round is submitted in the first few.
		
Click to expand...

Handicap record is over 2 clubs as is a new member.. so possibly the committee has also created a nice environment for such behaviour.. they may not like that being indicated to them.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 13, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Absolutely, that is the one condition. Although, an increase of up to 6 shots (on many courses based on typical slope) is still a nice boost to course handicap. And, if they could arguably inflate this year after year, unless they submit more good scores to get back down to their previous low index level.
		
Click to expand...

 Not following you. Hard cap kicks in at an extra three shots and limits total rise to five shots in a calendar year


----------



## ger147 (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Handicap record is over 2 clubs as is a new member.. so possibly the committee has also created a nice environment for such behaviour.. they may not like that being indicated to them.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know it is handicap manipulation?

You might think the same if you look at my handicap record. My lowest differential is 7.3 which is one of my counters, I have 2 others of 8 something and the rest a bit higher. My current index is 11.1 and my low index is 10.6. The 4 rounds immediately the 7.3 differential are all 20+. Is that because I am trying to manipulate my handicap? No, it's because I'm inconsistent because I'm just an ordinary weekend golfer who doesn't practice, and so on a good day am capable of a decent score and on a bad day can still end up with a horrifically bad score. And I can easily have a run of bad scores and occasionally a run of good scores.

Deciding someone is a cheat based solely on a quick scan of their handicap record is very poor IMO.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Your 8 best scores are taken from your last 20 rounds … put in a lot of rounds and the window moves, making a new set of 8 best scores. This guy moved his in 5 rounds from 8.3 to 13.5 on the index
		
Click to expand...

I would be  interested in the age of the good scores you mention. If more than a year old then  there could be a good reason behind it such as injury.

Having gone from 8.3 to 13.5 in one year is not possible, is that a typo?

There are two trigger points within the cap procedure:
(i) The soft cap. The soft cap is triggered when the difference between a player’s
newly calculated Handicap Index and their Low Handicap Index is greater than
3.0 strokes.
When a calculated Handicap Index increase is greater than 3.0 strokes, the
value above 3.0 strokes is restricted to 50% of the increase.
(ii) *The hard cap.* The hard cap triggers to restrict the amount by which a
player’s Handicap Index can increase, after application of the soft cap, to no
more than 5.0 strokes above their Low Handicap Index.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			General play and ball striking, he opened with a 300 yard drive and 25 yard flick to the first. Played bladed irons, struck the ball cleanly from the rough with back spin to the green. 9 irons were flying in from 160+ yards, out of bunkers cleanly … it wasn’t a 15 handicapper‘s game. The opening statement was “I prefer match play because I can’t play 18 holes“ was a bit odd and the scoring record on the stableford competitions showing 6-7 blobs a round with a sprinkling of good rounds in the low 80s … it’s just the number of bad rounds and how they have removed his good scores. I give most people the benefit of the doubt, but the shots started flying into the flags and were always straight. Which made me start to think there was some dodgey stuff afoot. Hence going through his historical rounds.
		
Click to expand...

In the semi-final of the high handicap matchplay, I played the front nine of my course in 45 last week - I opened par/par/par/par.  I am sure my opponent suspected the same; I've got 11 rounds in my handicap record at the moment off a mixture of our courses and tees and my best front or back nine is 50.  I really do try my hardest every time I play, am nowhere near good enough to manipulate my score, and would be upset if anyone seriously thought otherwise.  Are we incapable of seeing someone play well by their own standrds and say "well done"?


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 13, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			Not following you. Hard cap kicks in at an extra three shots and limits total rise to five shots in a calendar year
		
Click to expand...

Hard kicks is + 5 shots over Low Index. Soft Cap kicks in =3 shots over low index.


----------



## NorfolkShaun (Sep 13, 2021)

Out of interest, where does this sit with someone who puts nearly all their cards in but only really focuses for the comps?

Are they a bandit or just playing the system how is it supposed to be used?
how do you then judge what cards should go in. 

Personally I prefer club competitions only


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 13, 2021)

NorfolkShaun said:



			Out of interest, where does this sit with someone who puts nearly all their cards in but only really focuses for the comps?

Are they a bandit or just playing the system how is it supposed to be used?
how do you then judge what cards should go in.

Personally I prefer club competitions only
		
Click to expand...

When you submit a card for handicap, it is the players responsibility to try and score as best they can. If they are clearly not living up to this responsibility, then they are open to having disciplinary procedures opened against them. Of course, it would require this behaviour to be pretty obvious for there to be enough evidence to take action against them. Probably not a lot one can do if they are just a little less concentrated on social rounds than they typically would be in competitions. However, if they are clearly messing about in social rounds and submitting cards, it would be fair to question why are they submitting a card at all?


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 13, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			When you submit a card for handicap, it is the players responsibility to try and score as best they can. If they are clearly not living up to this responsibility, then they are open to having disciplinary procedures opened against them. Of course, it would require this behaviour to be pretty obvious for there to be enough evidence to take action against them. Probably not a lot one can do if they are just a little less concentrated on social rounds than they typically would be in competitions. However, if they are clearly messing about in social rounds and submitting cards, it would be fair to question why are they submitting a card at all?
		
Click to expand...

In lots of the situations mentioned on here, people have been practically press ganged into handing in cards, normally as sweeps etc have been encourages to become legitimate competitions etc.

  At my club, you can only play off the back tees in competitions.  I regularly play as a one ball and people join me.  At the weekend ive regularly had to enter the comp, and so enter a score, for no other reason than my uninvited partner wants to play in  the comp, and i dont want to go through the logistical ache of playing from different tees. 

So rightly or wrongly, i reckon it happens fairly often.


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

ger147 said:



			How do you know it is handicap manipulation?

You might think the same if you look at my handicap record. My lowest differential is 7.3 which is one of my counters, I have 2 others of 8 something and the rest a bit higher. My current index is 11.1 and my low index is 10.6. The 4 rounds immediately the 7.3 differential are all 20+. Is that because I am trying to manipulate my handicap? No, it's because I'm inconsistent because I'm just an ordinary weekend golfer who doesn't practice, and so on a good day am capable of a decent score and on a bad day can still end up with a horrifically bad score. And I can easily have a run of bad scores and occasionally a run of good scores.

Deciding someone is a cheat based solely on a quick scan of their handicap record is very poor IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Did not look at the handicap record until I actually played the guy. So judgement is based on other data. But I note your response and that is why I cannot be bothered to complain because your viewpoint is justified.. I don’t walk around calling people cheats, but this was a little extraordinary


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

Biggleswade Blue said:



			In the semi-final of the high handicap matchplay, I played the front nine of my course in 45 last week - I opened par/par/par/par.  I am sure my opponent suspected the same; I've got 11 rounds in my handicap record at the moment off a mixture of our courses and tees and my best front or back nine is 50.  I really do try my hardest every time I play, am nowhere near good enough to manipulate my score, and would be upset if anyone seriously thought otherwise.  Are we incapable of seeing someone play well by their own standrds and say "well done"?
		
Click to expand...

Completely capable of saying well done .. he did a good job of hiding his +4 capabilities 🤣


----------



## wjemather (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Did not look at the handicap record until I actually played the guy. So judgement is based on other data. But I note your response and that is why I cannot be bothered to complain because your viewpoint is justified.. *I don’t walk around calling people cheats*, but this was a little extraordinary
		
Click to expand...

But you are more than happy to do it anonymously on the Internet.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			But you are more than happy to do it anonymously on the Internet. 

Click to expand...

Isnt that the best place to voice it?


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

jim8flog said:



			I would be  interested in the age of the good scores you mention. If more than a year old then  there could be a good reason behind it such as injury.

Having gone from 8.3 to 13.5 in one year is not possible, is that a typo?

There are two trigger points within the cap procedure:
(i) The soft cap. The soft cap is triggered when the difference between a player’s
newly calculated Handicap Index and their Low Handicap Index is greater than
3.0 strokes.
When a calculated Handicap Index increase is greater than 3.0 strokes, the
value above 3.0 strokes is restricted to 50% of the increase.
(ii) *The hard cap.* The hard cap triggers to restrict the amount by which a
player’s Handicap Index can increase, after application of the soft cap, to no
more than 5.0 strokes above their Low Handicap Index.
		
Click to expand...

Its all within a year ..and he has managed 20+ rounds in that time to drop out the 2 low scores forcing the change


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			But you are more than happy to do it anonymously on the Internet. 

Click to expand...

Yup, and your point is ?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			But you are more than happy to do it anonymously on the Internet. 

Click to expand...

In this instance, everything is anonymous. It is practically a hypothetical discussion as we do not know the person concerned, no names have been mentioned, nor the club.

You might not agree with the method but no one is harmed.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 13, 2021)

wjemather said:



			But you are more than happy to do it anonymously on the Internet. 

Click to expand...

To be fair, he didn't name the chap


----------



## ger147 (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			Did not look at the handicap record until I actually played the guy. So judgement is based on other data. But I note your response and that is why I cannot be bothered to complain because your viewpoint is justified.. I don’t walk around calling people cheats, but this was a little extraordinary
		
Click to expand...

What was his score at the end of the match, and what was yours?


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

This is all about how the whs system can be manipulated.. and how someone looks like they may have done so and the reasoning as to why I think they have possibly manipulated


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

ger147 said:



			What was his score at the end of the match, and what was yours?
		
Click to expand...

He kept score, I record pluses and minuses.. I was 1 under my handicap after 17 holes he was 7 under his


----------



## ger147 (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			He kept score, I record pluses and minuses.. I was 1 under my handicap after 17 holes he was 7 under his
		
Click to expand...

So you played around or just under your handicap and he played a good bit better than his?  And therefore he won.

I don't see anything particularly out of the ordinary re. a 15 handicapper being +8 thru 17 holes, would have been a very nice cut in CONGU old money if done in a counting comp and well within the standard deviation of scores that many 15 handicappers are capable of.  My best gross score is +5 in competition and my best 9 holes is -1 gross and my lowest ever playing handicap is 11.

I get your point re. manipulation but it's generally not the way people manipulate their handicap regardless of system in my experience.  In the old CONGU world you needed to hand in 3 cards to keep an active handicap.  The handicap manipulators would play in their 3 comps (the minimum required), there would be no good scores amongst them and then off they would go into another season of scrambles, 4BBB's and match play comps. In the new WHS world you don't have to hand in any cards at all to maintain an active handicap and so these same guys will just not hand in any comp cards or GP play cards and just carry on as they did before entering scrambles, 4BBB's etc.  So my conclusion is someone who is truly trying to maintain an artificially high handicap would get it high and then just never hand in any more cards.  Handing in low scores then having to hand in loads of cards i.e. 20, to get rid of low scores would be much more difficult and a load of hassle, and therefore for me doesn't fit the profile of a handicap manipulator.


----------



## DRW (Sep 13, 2021)

harpo_72 said:



			He kept score, I record pluses and minuses.. I was 1 under my handicap after 17 holes he was 7 under his
		
Click to expand...

You are almost describing me, by your posts above. I can get it around under or very close to par on good days but can also easy shot 20 over.

I was 6.6 when WHS came in, now 10.5 via soft cap. Just haven't put the scores together in a round.

My good scores have/are disappearing(ed) fast and I haven't been luckily enough to record any really low scores whilst during a card(done 30) this year, some down to the above and some due to playing at other courses(harder ones than home club, slope does not reflect fairly for me), which hasn't help handicap scoring this year. In fact looking at my scoring, I have played all my scoring rounds on trickier/harder courses and none at home club this year.

I suppose I am what I would describe as a wildly inconsistent handicapper player, WHS will keep going up and then I will hit a rich period of play and get slashed. The opposite of a guy I know, almost always shots 30+ stableford points, consistent handicap, sickens me with jealously he does

Hows the guy done in other comps ?


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 13, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Hard kicks is + 5 shots over Low Index. Soft Cap kicks in =3 shots over low index.
		
Click to expand...

 Yes. I correctly  posted #514


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 13, 2021)

DRW said:



			You are almost describing me, by your posts above. I can get it around under or very close to par on good days but can also easy shot 20 over.

I was 6.6 when WHS came in, now 10.5 via soft cap. Just haven't put the scores together in a round.

My good scores have/are disappearing(ed) fast and I haven't been luckily enough to record any really low scores whilst during a card(done 30) this year, some down to the above and some due to playing at other courses(harder ones than home club, slope does not reflect fairly for me), which hasn't help handicap scoring this year. In fact looking at my scoring, I have played all my scoring rounds on trickier/harder courses and none at home club this year.

I suppose I am what I would describe as a wildly inconsistent handicapper player, WHS will keep going up and then I will hit a rich period of play and get slashed. The opposite of a guy I know, almost always shots 30+ stableford points, consistent handicap, sickens me with jealously he does

Hows the guy done in other comps ?
		
Click to expand...

He has basically gone 5 bad 1 good but brutally honest they are mainly stableford scores .. 6-7 blobs and attacking the 2 s


----------



## IainP (Sep 13, 2021)

My hunch is WHS will suit those who play aggressively and regularly put scores in.
Guy where I play, let me say I have no question marks on at all - hits a long ball and goes for stuff.
20th score is from 1st Aug 2021, HI 11.0
14th Aug had the "red letter day", in a comp, differential of 1 (with a HIO also!),  HI to 7.7
Few more rounds this month and it will be gone. Note several better scores are general play ones.


----------



## HampshireHog (Sep 19, 2021)

Cut 0.1 last week to 7.1, Increase of 1.8 this week to 8.9, gone from lowest to HI to highest HI in one week.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 24, 2021)

Lost my best score out of my 20-score record today. It was a differential of 1.0.
So 9th best score of 4.5 kicked in to replace it. Today's differential is 5.2 and that is my new 9th best.
Something has happened to me that I predicted was a possible flaw in HI calculations, because differentials are rounded to one decimal place.
My new HI looks like being 3.0 tomorrow. The average of my new best 8 is 2.95 and this gets rounded to 3.0.
But if they rounded differentials to 2 decimal places, my new HI would be 2.94125 and this should be rounded to 2.9.
In order for everyone's HI to be accurate, differentials should be 2 decimal places not 1.

There will be a significant proportion of us at any given time whose Handicap Index is in error by one decimal place due to an accumulation of rounding tolerances. 

My question to the forum:

I know my HI is wrong and why. Should I play to what I know is my correct handicap index or accept the WHS error as a false reality and live with it?


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 24, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Lost my best score out of my 20-score record today. It was a differential of 1.0.
So 9th best score of 4.5 kicked in to replace it. Today's differential is 5.2 and that is my new 9th best.
Something has happened to me that I predicted was a possible flaw in HI calculations, because differentials are rounded to one decimal place.
My new HI looks like being 3.0 tomorrow. The average of my new best 8 is 2.95 and this gets rounded to 3.0.
But if they rounded differentials to 2 decimal places, my new HI would be 2.94125 and this should be rounded to 2.9.
In order for everyone's HI to be accurate, differentials should be 2 decimal places not 1.

There will be a significant proportion of us at any given time whose Handicap Index is in error by one decimal place due to an accumulation of rounding tolerances.

My question to the forum:

I know my HI is wrong and why. Should I play to what I know is my correct handicap index or accept the WHS error as a false reality and live with it?
		
Click to expand...

First world problems. Tell the press, they may run with that story, knock down climate change and lack of delivery drivers further down the list of headlines  

Personally, I wouldn't stress about it.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 24, 2021)

Gone out to 7.4
If I don't better my worst SD next time out it'll go to 8 and ill get 10 shots...Fragger won't be happy...


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 24, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Lost my best score out of my 20-score record today. It was a differential of 1.0.
So 9th best score of 4.5 kicked in to replace it. Today's differential is 5.2 and that is my new 9th best.
Something has happened to me that I predicted was a possible flaw in HI calculations, because differentials are rounded to one decimal place.
My new HI looks like being 3.0 tomorrow. The average of my new best 8 is 2.95 and this gets rounded to 3.0.
But if they rounded differentials to 2 decimal places, my new HI would be 2.94125 and this should be rounded to 2.9.
In order for everyone's HI to be accurate, differentials should be 2 decimal places not 1.

There will be a significant proportion of us at any given time whose Handicap Index is in error by one decimal place due to an accumulation of rounding tolerances.

My question to the forum:

I know my HI is wrong and why. Should I play to what I know is my correct handicap index or accept the WHS error as a false reality and live with it?
		
Click to expand...

You correct handicap index is what WHS calculates, it's not worked to 2 decimal places. Also you must be working it out wrong anyway, if you're 2.94125, then that's 2.9 not 3.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 24, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



*You correct handicap index is what WHS calculates,* it's not worked to 2 decimal places. Also *you must be working it out wrong anyway,* if you're 2.94125, then that's 2.9 not 3.
		
Click to expand...

First bold bit - I am inclined to agree. Differentials are one decimal place and that's that.
Second bold bit - I calculated my differentials correctly and correctly rounded them to 2 decimal places and did the average correctly. Correctly, correctly, correctly average is 2.94125.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 24, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			First world problems. Tell the press, they may run with that story, knock down climate change and lack of delivery drivers further down the list of headlines 

Personally, I wouldn't stress about it.
		
Click to expand...

Personally, I am not stressing or inclined to. I think I will take the easy option of living with it.
Thought this might be of interest to WHS critics, however.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 24, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			First bold bit - I am inclined to agree. Differentials are one decimal place and that's that.
Second bold bit - I calculated my differentials correctly and correctly rounded them to 2 decimal places and did the average correctly. Correctly, correctly, correctly average is 2.94125.
		
Click to expand...

OK, but if it's 2.94125.....then it's not 2.95, it's 2.94 so should be 2.9 not 3.0, yes?


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 24, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			OK, but if it's 2.94125.....then it's not 2.95, it's 2.94 so should be 2.9 not 3.0, yes?
		
Click to expand...

That is what I said. My HI is 2.9 accurately, but 3.0 because of the rounding of differentials to one decimal place only.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 24, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			First world problems. Tell the press, they may run with that story, knock down climate change and lack of delivery drivers further down the list of headlines  

Personally, I wouldn't stress about it.
		
Click to expand...

You never know, it could knock Texas Scramble allowances or initial WHS handicap allocations off the lead story slot on tonight's News at Ten...


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 24, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			That is what I said. My HI is 2.9 accurately, but 3.0 because of the rounding of differentials to one decimal place only.
		
Click to expand...

But if round to one decimal, 2.94....rounds down not up, you only round up once hitting 2,95....


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 24, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			But if round to one decimal, 2.94....rounds down not up, you only round up once hitting 2,95....
		
Click to expand...

The point he is making is that, WHS calculates Score Diff to one decimal place. Then adds them up and divides by 8 to get average of 2.95, thus Index of 3 0.

He has done exact same calculation, but worked out each Score Diff to 2 decimal places instead of 1, thus he gets an end Index of 2.9.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 24, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			But if round to one decimal, 2.94....rounds down not up, you only round up once hitting 2,95....
		
Click to expand...

No, it is the differentials that are rounded to one decimal place by WHS - all of them.
I have calculated all my differentials and rounded them to 2 decimal places to create an accurate one decimal place average.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 24, 2021)

ger147 said:



			You never know, it could knock Texas Scramble allowances or initial WHS handicap allocations off the lead story slot on tonight's News at Ten...
		
Click to expand...

Nope, they'll still be the leading stories.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 24, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			No, it is the differentials that are rounded to one decimal place by WHS - all of them.
I have calculated all my differentials and rounded them to 2 decimal places to create an accurate one decimal place average.
		
Click to expand...

I gotcha now, sorry misunderstood what you meant.


----------



## ger147 (Sep 24, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Nope, they'll still be the leading stories.
		
Click to expand...

Only in your head...👍🏻


----------



## rulefan (Sep 24, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			I have calculated all my differentials and rounded them to 2 decimal places to create an accurate one decimal place average.
		
Click to expand...

Why? Individual differentials are expressed (ie rounded) to the nearest 10th.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 24, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Why? Individual differentials are expressed (ie rounded) to the nearest 10th.
		
Click to expand...

Yes they are, but why are they not rounded to two decimal places?
This would produce a Handicap Index that is correct to one decimal place instead of being possibly inaccurate by plus or minus 0.1.

WHS has built-in this inaccuracy and it could very easily be avoided.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 24, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Yes they are, but why are they not rounded to two decimal places?
This would produce a Handicap Index that is correct to one decimal place instead of being possibly inaccurate by plus or minus one decimal place.

WHS has built-in this inaccuracy and it could very easily be avoided.
		
Click to expand...

Is 1 dec place in 1 case in 10 really significant, given that CH is calculated to be a whole number anyway.
But for players to make sense of your method, differentials would have to be displayed to 2 dec places, unless they recalculate them themselves.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Is 1 dec place in 1 case in 10 really significant, given that CH is calculated to be a whole number anyway.
But for players to make sense of your method, differentials would have to be displayed to 2 dec places, unless they recalculate them themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is significant. A slope of 132 makes a CH of 3 for an index of 2.9 but 4 for 3.0 giving me a whole extra shot which would not happen if differentials were more accurately calculated.

No one needs to make sense of my method. It is not my method. It is WHS method.
I am merely pointing out that WHS method is inaccurate due to the possibility of an accumulation of 8 rounding tolerances.
This inaccuracy would not happen if WHS differentials were two decimal places as that would create a handicap index correct to one decimal place.
The current WHS method will always produce some inaccurate handicap indices (plus or minus 0.1) and some of those will have an inaccurate course handicap (plus or minus one whole shot)
Same method, but more accurate arithmetic, would improve the WHS.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 25, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Yes it is significant. A slope of 132 makes a CH of 3 for an index of 2.9 but 4 for 3.0 giving me a whole extra shot which would not happen if differentials were more accurately calculated.
		
Click to expand...

 Both produce the same PH




			No one needs to make sense of my method. It is not my method. It is WHS method.
I am merely pointing out that WHS method is inaccurate due to the possibility of an accumulation of 8 rounding tolerances.
This inaccuracy would not happen if WHS differentials were two decimal places as that would create a handicap index correct to one decimal place.
The current WHS method will always produce some inaccurate handicap indices (plus or minus 0.1) and some of those will have an inaccurate course handicap (plus or minus one whole shot)
Same method, but more accurate arithmetic, would improve the WHS.
		
Click to expand...

Of course the rather spurious accuracy of the Course & Bogey Ratings (and therefore Slope) on a particular day mean that Differentials are only approximations anyway. And penalty scores can skew any indication of normal ability.

Interestingly, one objective of the WHS is "_to indicate with sufficient accuracy the score a golfer is reasonably capable of achieving ........._". Surely whole numbers is sufficient given that scores are in whole numbers.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 25, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Yes it is significant. A slope of 132 makes a CH of 3 for an index of 2.9 but 4 for 3.0 giving me a whole extra shot which would not happen if differentials were more accurately calculated.

No one needs to make sense of my method. It is not my method. It is WHS method.
I am merely pointing out that WHS method is inaccurate due to the possibility of an accumulation of 8 rounding tolerances.
This inaccuracy would not happen if WHS differentials were two decimal places as that would create a handicap index correct to one decimal place.
The current WHS method will always produce some inaccurate handicap indices (plus or minus 0.1) and some of those will have an inaccurate course handicap (plus or minus one whole shot)
Same method, but more accurate arithmetic, would improve the WHS.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you're starting from a flawed premise that any handicap system provides an accurate handicap. They don't. They merely (aim to) provide the best possible approximation of players' ability in order to allow them to complete against each other as equitably as possible. The margin of error in the resultant handicaps is much greater than 0.1, and probably (for many/most) greater than a full stroke.

As such, a 0.1 difference in the result due to the compound effect of rounding is insignificant to the overall result, even if it does occasionally produce a different Course Handicap.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2021)

I suppose it all depends on whether you prefer correct arithmetic or "its not exactly correct all the time, but a few wrong answers don't matter much."
I see no point in "built-in" inaccuracies, when correct arithmetic makes more sense, is not harder to do, and would be correct every time.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2021)

wjemather said:



*Unfortunately, you're starting from a flawed premise *that any handicap system provides an accurate handicap. They don't. They merely (aim to) provide the best possible approximation of players' ability in order to allow them to complete against each other as equitably as possible. The margin of error in the resultant handicaps is much greater than 0.1, and probably (for many/most) greater than a full stroke.

As such, a 0.1 difference in the result due to the compound effect of rounding is insignificant to the overall result, even if it does occasionally produce a different Course Handicap.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree.
I am not starting with any premise whatsoever.

I am pointing out that differentials calculated to one decimal place only produces an inaccurate calculation of an average of 8 differentials.
There is no premise there. It is a statement of fact. The WHS arithmetic of "average of best 8" is flawed.

I have made no premise or judgement about whether the whole system produces a realistic handicap. 

I have pointed out inaccurate arithmetic.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 25, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			I disagree.
I am not starting with any premise whatsoever.

I am pointing out that differentials calculated to one decimal place only produces an inaccurate calculation of an average of 8 differentials.
There is no premise there. It is a statement of fact. The WHS arithmetic of "average of best 8" is flawed.

I have made no premise or judgement about whether the whole system produces a realistic handicap.

I have pointed out inaccurate arithmetic.
		
Click to expand...

Despite your assertions, the arithmetic is neither inaccurate nor incorrect; it is merely subject to various rounding errors at several stages of the process. Not rounding at one step does not undo the rest of the rounding.

Firstly, the the ratings upon which the differentials are derived are themselves subject to rounding (this is probably the most significant); then score differentials are rounded; then the Handicap Index is rounded; then the Course Handicap is rounded; and finally the Playing Handicap is rounded. You are focussing on the step where rounding possibly has the least significance.

When a 0.1 (or even 0.01 ) difference in index regularly results in the same one stroke difference on the course as a 1.9 difference in index, and the average player can easily shoot ten strokes different from one day to the next, the overall significance of such rounding errors is inconsequential.


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 25, 2021)

Well result of the match play came in the low chap was 1 over gross and -1or 2 to handicap and lost 5&3. Other chap played out of his skin 🤔🤭😂


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Despite your assertions, the arithmetic is neither inaccurate nor incorrect; it is merely subject to various rounding errors at several stages of the process. Not rounding at one step does not undo the rest of the rounding.

Firstly, the the ratings upon which the differentials are derived are themselves subject to rounding (this is probably the most significant); then score differentials are rounded; then the Handicap Index is rounded; then the Course Handicap is rounded; and finally the Playing Handicap is rounded. *You are focussing on the step where rounding possibly has the least significance.*

When a 0.1 (or even 0.01 ) difference in index regularly results in the same one stroke difference on the course as a 1.9 difference in index, and the average player can easily shoot ten strokes different from one day to the next, the overall significance of such rounding errors is inconsequential.
		
Click to expand...

This where we will differ. I believe this step is very significant.
It does produce an accumulation of 8 rounding errors so that the average will not be accurate to one decimal place every time.
If differentials were always two decimal places then the average of 8 would be accurate to one decimal place every time.
The arithmetic is flawed and inaccuracies occur which could be easily avoided.
I do not believe this step is made to be insignificant by the fact that course ratings and slope ratings are involved in the calculations of the differentials.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 25, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			This where we will differ. I believe this step is very significant.
It does produce an accumulation of 8 rounding errors so that the average will not be accurate to one decimal place every time.
If differentials were always two decimal places then the average of 8 would be accurate to one decimal place every time.
The arithmetic is flawed and inaccuracies occur which could be easily avoided.
I do not believe this step is made to be insignificant by the fact that course ratings and slope ratings are involved in the calculations of the differentials.
		
Click to expand...

Are you not assuming you only round on one direction all 8 times? Sometimes you'll round down to the one decimal place, sometimes up.  

It is not right to say WHS is ALWAYS 0.1 out every time. In fact, it is likely to be very rare.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Are you not assuming you only round on one direction all 8 times? Sometimes you'll round down to the one decimal place, sometimes up. 

It is not right to say WHS is ALWAYS 0.1 out every time. In fact, it is likely to be very rare.
		
Click to expand...

I have not assumed anything and I did not say the calculation is ALWAYS out every time.
I said it would not be accurate every time.
Occasionally there will be an inaccuracy.
There will be some plus rounding errors and some minus rounding errors.
When there is far more of one than the other, then the average of 8 calculation is prone to the inaccuracy of plus or minus 0.1.

I have stated nothing but facts about the average of 8 calculation. No assumptions.
8 figures to one decimal place that have rounding errors of plus or minus 0.05 can and will create an average that has an accuracy of plus or minus 0.1.
The vast majority will be spot on.
Some will be in error by +0.1 and some by -0.1.

All this could be corrected by retaining two decimal places for every differential and rounding the average to one decimal place.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 25, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			I have not assumed anything and I did not say the calculation is ALWAYS out every time.
I said it would not be accurate every time.
Occasionally there will be an inaccuracy.
There will be some plus rounding errors and some minus rounding errors.
When there is far more of one than the other, then the average of 8 calculation is prone to the inaccuracy of plus or minus 0.1.

I have stated nothing but facts about the average of 8 calculation. No assumptions.
8 figures to one decimal place that have rounding errors of plus or minus 0.05 can and will create an average that has an accuracy of plus or minus 0.1.
The vast majority will be spot on.
Some will be in error by +0.1 and some by -0.1.

All this could be corrected by retaining two decimal places for every differential and rounding the average to one decimal place.
		
Click to expand...

You said, direct quote: 

"It does produce an accumulation of 8 rounding errors so that the average will not be accurate to one decimal place every time."

I read that as every single time, the average will not be accurate. What you probably meant was there will be occasions it may not be accurate.

I believe others have more than countered your debate, given the much bigger inaccuracies within handicap calculations. Personally, I am guessing out of a few hundred million golfers worldwide, you may be the only one concerned by this particular issue. You could email WHS support to voice your concerns, maybe they'll change it if they think you have a point. I reckon there could be higher things up the list when they next get round to making any changes.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			You said, direct quote:

"It does produce an accumulation of 8 rounding errors so that the average will not be accurate to one decimal place every time."

I read that as every single time, the average will not be accurate. What you probably meant was there will be occasions it may not be accurate.

I believe others have more than countered your debate, given the much bigger inaccuracies within handicap calculations. Personally, I am guessing out of a few hundred million golfers worldwide, you may be the only one concerned by this particular issue. You could email WHS support to voice your concerns, maybe they'll change it if they think you have a point. I reckon there could be higher things up the list when they next get round to making any changes.
		
Click to expand...

I have no concerns so I will not be voicing any. I believe all I have done here is state the facts of the arithmetic in order to inform others of these facts.
I do not accept "countered your debate" when I have not debated - I have stated facts.
Should anyone wish to ignore or disbelieve these facts, then that is entirely up to them and this also does not concern me.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 26, 2021)

Whilst your facts are correct, they are irrelevant and their effect is lost in all the other calculations of handicapping. Handicaps are a good example of 'false precision'.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 26, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Whilst your facts are correct, they are irrelevant and their effect is lost in all the other calculations of handicapping. Handicaps are a good example of 'false precision'.
		
Click to expand...

Hear hear. Thats the bottom line really. Talk of 'precision' to a decimal point of a rating of a persons golfing level relative to a field is pointless. It is so inaccurate anyway, that concerns about a possible  occasional computation 'error' of 0.1 has no real influence on the outcome. That it might change the result is not the point - the point is that the possible result change is within the handicap accuracy noise range anyway.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 26, 2021)

I have an official handicap index of 3.0.
I know that with more accurate calculation of the average of best 8 differentials (no other calculations involved) this would give the correct answer of 2.9.

At my course with a slope rating of 132, I have a course handicap of 3 if my index is 2.9 and a course handicap of 4 if my index is 3.0.
A whole extra shot because of the poor arithmetic of the average of best 8 calculation.
There will be others in this position around the country.
This could cause trophies to be wrongly won. (Is that irrelevant?)

Differentials retaining 2 decimal places would remove these errors in the average of 8 calculation.

All of the above is factual. It is not irrelevant.

Anyone referring to other the other calculations is obfuscating. 

An arithmetical error is an error.
If you choose to ignore this, then that is up to you.
I prefer arithmetic that does not give wrong answers.

I have no problem accepting my official handicap. This would also be true if it were lower than it should be.
If all the facts I have set out are irrelevant, then so are all the responses. I do not believe the previous sentence to hold any truth.
Thank you for all your responses and comments. Most stimulating.


----------



## IanM (Sep 26, 2021)

Got a maths boffin at our club who has been saying similar....   I lost him halfway through the explanation though


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 26, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			I have an official handicap index of 3.0.
I know that with more accurate calculation of the average of best 8 differentials (no other calculations involved) this would give the correct answer of 2.9.



All of the above is factual. It is not irrelevant.

.
		
Click to expand...

Both 3.0 and 2.9 are equally correct. The mathematics are correct, but the conclusions drawn, incorrect. Making the apparent inaccuracy, irrelevant.


----------



## IanM (Sep 26, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			Both 3.0 and 2.9 are equally correct. The mathematics are correct, but the conclusions drawn, incorrect. Making the apparent inaccuracy, irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

Depends where the line on the CH chart is....if you see what I mean


----------



## rulefan (Sep 26, 2021)

IanM said:



			Depends where the line on the CH chart is....if you see what I mean
		
Click to expand...

I do. And it depends on the accuracy of the course and bogey ratings (eg the estimation of the difficulty of the rough by the rating team).


----------



## Hercules (Sep 26, 2021)

I recently played in a better ball comp over four days. I filled in my own individual cards for these four rounds but have been told that these can't be submitted for handicap purposes! Is this correct?


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 26, 2021)

Hercules said:



			I recently played in a better ball comp over four days. I filled in my own individual cards for these four rounds but have been told that these can't be submitted for handicap purposes! Is this correct?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, better ball is not acceptable for handicap, as there'll be certain team elements that could impact the way you play. Also, even if it were acceptable, you'd need to pre register you intent before teeing off


----------



## IanM (Sep 26, 2021)

Kaz said:



			I actually managed to come third in a stableford! In the WHS era! OK, I did break par and was still five shots off the winner but it was almost competitive! 

Click to expand...

You'll have to get one of those nomad handicaps under a false name and clean up at Opens!🤫🤣


----------



## harpo_72 (Sep 26, 2021)

I popped a score in yesterday of 34pts and got a 0.1 cut ( 2 blobs on the front 9) .. now I could be accused of being a bandit


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)




----------



## rulefan (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



View attachment 38691

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone disputed your maths, only the significance in the overall system.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)

The significance is that I am playing off 4 when I should be playing off 3.
Nothing to do with any aspect of the overall system, merely poor arithmetic of the average of 8 calculation.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 27, 2021)

As I work on rebuilding my swing with new clubs my HI has gone from 8.4 to 10.9…that is both a fair reflection of my golf over this transition and is what I need to keep posting ok scores and keep positive.  Under the old system such a significant increase would have been very unlikely.

In three rounds time I will lose a 9.4 and I am unlikely to post a score equal to or bettering that - so HI will continue to increase as my best non-counting diff is 13.6 and so it could jump to 11.3 or more which will see me with a CH of 13.  Quite a change in a year…but working for me.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			The significance is that I am playing off 4 when I should be playing off 3.
Nothing to do with any aspect of the overall system, merely poor arithmetic of the average of 8 calculation.
		
Click to expand...

OK, we understand the point, but every single player moves a whole shot in playing handicap when their CH moves 0.1 one way or the other when they are right on the cusp of a PH change. That is impossible to change, you're just excited about it because you can see a way where it splits when calculated to the nth degree.

What will really blow your mind is that Wales, Ireland and England use a rounded course handicap, but Scotland uses the exact. So you could cross the border & play a course with identical ratings, but be playing off a different handicap.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)

Does not blow my mind, because I knew that in November last year. I would prefer the Scottish way as it removes the disproportionate "lump" of players with a playing handicap of 10.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

One of my mates has been a bandit off 29 for too long as he rarely enters comps, and when he does he crumbles to pieces. So we made him put in a card on the weekend, and sure enough he played really well, getting 39 points with one blob (around 94 gross). So he puts the card in through the EG app - and only got cut by 0.4. He's now 28.6 so still off 29 essentially. Old system he would have been cut around 1.2 wouldn't he, so at least he'd have gone down a shot? His front nine was actually one shot lower gross than me and his handicap is still double mine! No wonder high handicappers are winning everything now.


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			The significance is that I am playing off 4 when I should be playing off 3.
Nothing to do with any aspect of the overall system, merely poor arithmetic of the average of 8 calculation.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you entirely with the caveat that where ever you draw a line/set a policy, there are anomalies at the margin.


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2021)

In the bar on Saturday, we were taking about the inconsistencies of peoples' approach to entering general play cards... we're seeing the range of "lots" to "none!"

I guess the sensible solution is to accept the disparity or return to a comps only (mainly?) approach.  

But I guess if left to the WHS Police, we know their answer!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 27, 2021)

IanM said:



			In the bar on Saturday, we were taking about the inconsistencies of peoples' approach to entering general play cards... we're seeing the range of "lots" to "none!"

*I guess the sensible solution is to accept the disparity or return to a comps only (mainly?) approach. *

But I guess if left to the WHS Police, we know their answer! 

Click to expand...

This 100%. In the UK we've simply never been returners of casual play cards, as a result a style of play during bounce games involves gimmes, dragging back putts for a rego, maybe dropping a ball now and again when you've duffed one, playing in "casual" 4BBB side bets etc. 

You can't just change that mentality that is so ingrained.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)

IanM said:



			I agree with you entirely with the caveat that where ever you draw a line/set a policy, there are anomalies at the margin.
		
Click to expand...

..and this anomaly could be eradicated by setting differentials to two decimal places. Very easy for WHS to do this - and hey presto - this anomaly is no more.

But I agree with you and an earlier poster. Differentials have been set at one decimal place and that's that. We live with it.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			One of my mates has been a bandit off 29 for too long as he rarely enters comps, and when he does he crumbles to pieces. So we made him put in a card on the weekend, and sure enough he played really well, getting 39 points with one blob (around 94 gross). So he puts the card in through the EG app - and only got cut by 0.4. He's now 28.6 so still off 29 essentially. Old system he would have been cut around 1.2 wouldn't he, so at least he'd have gone down a shot? His front nine was actually one shot lower gross than me and his handicap is still double mine! No wonder high handicappers are winning everything now.
		
Click to expand...

Not a massive cut - but hes literally beaten handicap by 1 stroke so I wouldnt expect much more personally. I'd need an exceptional round now to see a significant cut in my average


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

Bdill93 said:



			Not a massive cut - but hes literally beaten handicap by 1 stroke so I wouldnt expect much more personally. I'd need an exceptional round now to see a significant cut in my average
		
Click to expand...

Three strokes.


----------



## IanM (Sep 27, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			This 100%. In the UK we've simply never been returners of casual play cards, as a result a style of play during bounce games involves gimmes, dragging back putts for a rego, maybe dropping a ball now and again when you've duffed one, playing in "casual" 4BBB side bets etc.

You can't just change that mentality that is so ingrained.
		
Click to expand...

You can change mentality and culture.  But it is hard t do and it isn't done by issuing 200 page manuals!!!   

And nuts to that anyway.  Some golf is competition, some is "just for fun!"   Thank the Lord for the difference!


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

I posted this on the Ryder Cup thread, but maybe WHS fans would be interested what Indexes would be given to Ryder Cup players based on this weekend. Maybe some surprising results, but one thing is for sure, they are all pretty decent players

So, having a look at the hole scores for each player, I was bored and decided to give each player a WHS Index based on the Course Rating and Slope at Whistling Straits, assuming they were posting these scores to get their 1st handicap. I only took the fourballs and singles scores (obviously), so a few players will have fewer than 3 scores. So, I just assumed whatever score(s) they posted, would be their best once there other scores were submitted to make up 3. It is always interesting when us club golfers are usually critical of how players played, how they let us down, etc. However, the results below indicate that all 24 players are still pretty damn good golfers, bearing in mind these scores are also based with having the pressure of the Ryder Cup on their shoulders, rather than going out with a social knock with their mates. Note, Europeans highlighted in bold.

1. D Johnson   -11.1
1. D Berger   -11.1

3. P Cantlay   -10.3
3. B Dechambeau   -10.3
3. B Koepka   -10.3

6. C Morikawa   -9.6
*6. V Hofland*   -9.6
*6. P Casey*   -9.6
6. T Finau   -9.6
*6. I Poulter*   -9.6

*11. R McIlroy*   -8.8
11. S Scheffler   -8.8
11. J Thomas   -8.8
11. J Spieth   -8.8
*11. T Fleetwood*   -8.8
*11. M Fitzpatrick*   -8.8

*17. S Lowry*   -8.1
*17. S Garcia*   -8.1
*17. B Wiesberger*   -8.1
*17. L Westwood *  -8.1

*21. J Rahm*   -7.4
21. H English   -7.4

23. X Schauffele   -6.6

*24. T Hatton*   -5.9


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



View attachment 38691

Click to expand...

So your saying you have an unfair advantage of 1 shot over a player who you are 0.004 shots better than.  Because the handicap system is so accurate it can classify peoples ability to thousands of a shot.

Fair point well made.  

I would wonder how accurately the PCC and course rating are calculated?  If the difficulty cant be resolved to the same accuracy then as Rules Doc mentioned, you are using false precision.


----------



## HampshireHog (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Three strokes.
		
Click to expand...

Assuming you played @95% Five shots


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			Assuming you played @95% Five shots
		
Click to expand...

Eh? Why would you assume that?


----------



## HampshireHog (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Eh? Why would you assume that?
		
Click to expand...

Because I would always play off 95% of my course handicap for scoring Stableford, as I would in a comp.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			Because I would always play off 95% of my course handicap for scoring Stableford, as I would in a comp.
		
Click to expand...

I see no reason to do that. More maths, worse score, there's no up side.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Three strokes.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, My place is 38 points to par. My mistake


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Three strokes.
		
Click to expand...

Is the Course Rating = Par?

A player could get 39 points and have a handicap increase anyway, it all depends on what the latest score replaces.


----------



## HampshireHog (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			I see no reason to do that. More maths, worse score, there's no up side.
		
Click to expand...

Improves your Maths, less chance of making a mistake on your card in a comp, not turning up in comp and psychologically thinking you’ve lost one or two shots compared to normal👍


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			Improves your Maths, less chance of making a mistake on your card in a comp, not turning up in comp and psychologically thinking you’ve lost one or two shots compared to normal👍
		
Click to expand...

I just think it's stupid, if I'm to play off 95% all the time then why didn't they just include that in the calculation and make that my handicap in the first place. And I don't see the point about mistakes on the card either as I thought you only need to write gross score anyway.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			Improves your Maths, *less chance of making a mistake on your card in a comp*, not turning up in comp and psychologically thinking you’ve lost one or two shots compared to normal👍
		
Click to expand...

No. More chance of making a mistake by relying on mental arithmetic instead of a computer. In any case, player scorecard requirements are gross hole scores, Course Handicap and certification - other than counting strokes, mental arithmetic is not needed for any of these. Simpler to just play with your Course Handicap and leave any allowances and adjustments to the committee.


----------



## rosecott (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Three strokes.
		
Click to expand...

Is that against par or Course Rating?


----------



## HampshireHog (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			I just think it's stupid, if I'm to play off 95% all the time then why didn't they just include that in the calculation and make that my handicap in the first place. And I don't see the point about mistakes on the card either as I thought you only need to write gross score anyway.
		
Click to expand...

It’s your prerogative, I can’t imagine why anyone would score themselves differently to normal.  Our comp requirements are to have entered your CH and PH if you didn’t factor in the 95% for PH it’s a DQ.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			It’s your prerogative, I can’t imagine why anyone would score themselves differently to normal.  Our comp requirements are to have entered your CH and PH if you didn’t factor in the 95% for PH it’s a DQ.
		
Click to expand...

Yet another reason the new system is stupid. The amount of comp rounds I play have been less than one a month to be honest to your perception of 'normal' is not the same as mine. My normal is simply to enjoy the round and play off whatever you believe your handicap is. 



rosecott said:



			Is that against par or Course Rating?
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea. But yes, that is probably where the explanation lies.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			No. More chance of making a mistake by relying on mental arithmetic instead of a computer. In any case, player scorecard requirements are gross hole scores, Course Handicap and certification - other than counting strokes, mental arithmetic is not needed for any of these. Simpler to just play with your Course Handicap and leave any allowances and adjustments to the committee.
		
Click to expand...

Well, when we play roll ups we need players to use their mental arithmetic skills to work out the 95%, no Committee to do it for us. Most of the field just say we'll use Course Handicap. However, given there is money involved, as a single figure handicapper I'm not happy that. Otherwise we might as well just say that anyone with a handicap over 10 gets a bonus point, and anyone over 30 gets 2 bonus points.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)

sweaty sock said:



			So your saying you have an unfair advantage of 1 shot over a player who you are 0.004 shots better than.  Because the handicap system is so accurate it can classify peoples ability to thousands of a shot.

Fair point well made. 

I would wonder how accurately the PCC and course rating are calculated?  If the difficulty cant be resolved to the same accuracy then as Rules Doc mentioned, you are using false precision.
		
Click to expand...

No. I make no false precision.
I make no other assumptions, claims of accuracy etc of the whole system or any other aspect of the system.
I merely state, as a fact, that the average of 8 calculation is lazy and poor arithmetic.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			No. I make no false precision.
I make no other assumptions, claims of accuracy etc of the whole system or any other aspect of the system.
I merely state, as a fact, that the average of 8 calculation is lazy and poor arithmetic.
		
Click to expand...

The arithmetic is correct, you are simply occasionally getting a slightly different end result based on the point at which you round numbers in the process. And even on the rare occasion you may get a decimal point difference in result, more often than not it will make zero difference to the handicap you actually use to work out your score in a competition.

You've made your point. No one has disagreed that on these very very very rare occasions you might get this very very marginally different answer. So, you do not need to keep making this point, no one is saying you are wrong. What they do seem to be saying is that, no one cares. And, I do not really think you care. All the way back in post 542 you stated *"Personally, I am not stressing or inclined to. I think I will take the easy option of living with it." *If that is the case, then stop going on about it. Otherwise you are showing there is much less accuracy with the meaning of your words than the mathematical inaccuracies you keep going on about with WHS.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Well, when we play roll ups we need players to use their mental arithmetic skills to work out the 95%, no Committee to do it for us. Most of the field just say we'll use Course Handicap. However, given there is money involved, as a single figure handicapper I'm not happy that. Otherwise we might as well just say that anyone with a handicap over 10 gets a bonus point, and anyone over 30 gets 2 bonus points.
		
Click to expand...

Full Course Handicap is equitable for fields of fewer than 30 players - only CONGU (that I'm aware of) has decided to apply the allowance to all competitions.

Why on earth would you want to use 95% allowances in rollups?? Absolutely unnecessary. (As you describe) it's just lower handicappers tipping the odds in their favour.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			It’s your prerogative, I can’t imagine why anyone would score themselves differently to normal.  Our comp requirements are to have entered your CH and PH* if you didn’t factor in the 95% for PH it’s a DQ*.
		
Click to expand...

If this is the case, your committee is acting contrary to the Rules of Golf and their interpretations.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Full Course Handicap is equitable for fields of fewer than 30 players - only CONGU (that I'm aware of) has decided to apply the allowance to all competitions.

Why on earth would you want to use 95% allowances in rollups?? Absolutely unnecessary. (As you describe) it's just lower handicappers tipping the odds in their favour.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting. Our handicap authority say these Allowances are mandatory, but you say we should just ignore them because, why? If I play in a competition in a club competition players will get one score, but if we were to play in a competition between ourselves, exact same format and rules, scores will be different.

What other guidelines can we ignore from our handicap authority? 

Also, sometimes our roll ups have more than 30 players, so is it OK if we use our arithmetic skills then?


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Interesting. Our handicap authority say these Allowances are mandatory, but you say we should just ignore them because, why? If I play in a competition in a club competition players will get one score, but if we were to play in a competition between ourselves, exact same format and rules, scores will be different.

What other guidelines can we ignore from our handicap authority?

Also, sometimes our roll ups have more than 30 players, so is it OK if we use our arithmetic skills then?
		
Click to expand...

(As you already know) CONGU has not made the allowances mandatory for anything except formally organised competitions. Whichever way you try and justify it, it's very clear from your earlier comment that you are just making your rollups more complicated than they need to be purely for your own benefit.


----------



## badgergm (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Full Course Handicap is equitable for fields of fewer than 30 players - only CONGU (that I'm aware of) has decided to apply the allowance to all competitions.

Why on earth would you want to use 95% allowances in rollups?? Absolutely unnecessary. (As you describe) it's just lower handicappers tipping the odds in their favour.
		
Click to expand...

Why does the size of the field matter here?


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			The arithmetic is correct, you are simply occasionally getting a slightly different end result based on the point at which you round numbers in the process. And even on the rare occasion you may get a decimal point difference in result, more often than not it will make zero difference to the handicap you actually use to work out your score in a competition.

You've made your point. No one has disagreed that on these very very very rare occasions you might get this very very marginally different answer. So, you do not need to keep making this point, no one is saying you are wrong. What they do seem to be saying is that, no one cares. And, I do not really think you care. All the way back in post 542 you stated *"Personally, I am not stressing or inclined to. I think I will take the easy option of living with it." *If that is the case, then stop going on about it. Otherwise you are showing there is much less accuracy with the meaning of your words than the mathematical inaccuracies you keep going on about with WHS.
		
Click to expand...

So why do you go on about it then? 
You have comments to make, usually very good ones.
I have my comments to make.
I feel I should be allowed to respond when others pass comments about my posts. Or am I wrong to make this assumption?


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

badgergm said:



			Why does the size of the field matter here?
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't especially, but the implication was that rollups (which are generally <30 players) wouldn't be fair/equitable without the 95% allowance - which simply isn't true (RoH appendix C/1).


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			No. I make no false precision.
I make no other assumptions, claims of accuracy etc of the whole system or any other aspect of the system.
I merely state, as a fact, that the average of 8 calculation is lazy and poor arithmetic.
		
Click to expand...

Even though people are explaining that it is neither lazy nor poor arithmetic because the accuracy of handicaps in the first place is greater than 0.1? It is probably 1 or greater anyway. So concern about 'precision' in one element is misplaced when the error is greater than that. It would be like complaining about road signs not giving precision to feet and inches, so that you know the distance to your destination. Yes, factually it would be more correct and precise. But in practice, useless precision.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			(As you already know) CONGU has not made the allowances mandatory for anything except formally organised competitions. Whichever way you try and justify it, it's very clear from your earlier comment that you are just making your rollups more complicated than they need to be purely for your own benefit.
		
Click to expand...

So, in Congu's guidance, they state:

"The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory."

I appreciate when we play with mates, we can do what we wish, we could scrap handicaps altogether. However, when using WHS handicaps, should we not be following the guidance set out by the authorities? If I play fourball match play with my mates, shall we also just ignore the 90% allowances and play full course handicap? If we do no0t follow the WHS and CONGU guidance, surely that is just going to make things more confusing. Players may play in roll ups week in week out and use 100% course handicap. Then enter a comp and then nor realise, or be confused as hell, that suddenly they only get 95%


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 27, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			Even though people are explaining that it is neither lazy nor poor arithmetic because the accuracy of handicaps in the first place is greater than 0.1? It is probably 1 or greater anyway. So concern about 'precision' in one element is misplaced when the error is greater than that. It would be like complaining about road signs not giving precision to feet and inches, so that you know the distance to your destination. Yes, factually it would be more correct and precise. But in practice, useless precision.
		
Click to expand...

Its more like going to the museum and claiming that an artifact is 3000 year, 2 months, 4 days and 6 hours old.  A very specific age, Using the justification that the curator told you it was 3000 years old on your last visit, which was 2 months 4 days and 6 hours ago.  Its adding layers of precision to a number that was much less precise to begin with.

So given your playing handicap is a whole number, your course rating is to one decimal place, you can never claim any more precision than that.  Its just good scientific method. 

Really your handicap, if it were a scientific experiment, would have error bars to account for the innaccuracies in the data, that would take care of the dirty arithmetic in voyagers example.  But error bars on handicap would make no sense so they are left out. 

Im saying no more, people are getting entrenched...


----------



## badgergm (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			It doesn't especially, but the implication was that rollups (which are generally <30 players) wouldn't be fair/equitable without the 95% allowance - which simply isn't true (RoH appendix C/1).
		
Click to expand...

thanks for the reference, hadn’t seen that. Not obvious to me why field sizes have an impact on equity though. Counter intuitive, to me anyway.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			It doesn't especially, but the implication was that rollups (which are generally <30 players) wouldn't be fair/equitable without the 95% allowance - which simply isn't true (RoH appendix C/1).
		
Click to expand...

Our next golf weekend has over 30 players. Arithmetic required for the 95% allowance?


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

badgergm said:



			thanks for the reference, hadn’t seen that. Not obvious to me why field sizes have an impact on equity though. Counter intuitive, to me anyway.
		
Click to expand...

The larger the field, the higher the chance a higher handicapper will win. This is because a players Index is based on the average of a players best 8 scores. The range of these 8 scores will be a lot higher compared to a very low handicapper, thus their best score will be more under the average of these scores (i.e. more under their Index). As the field size increases, and the number of higher handicappers increase, then you increase the odds that one of these higher handicappers will shoot a top score, towards their best in 20. Therefore increase the chances the event will be won by a high handicapper (as this is mathematically lower under their index than a lower indexer could realistically shoot in relation to their Index). The 95% is there to try and remove that imbalance. The main WHS manual recommends the 95% for field sizes over 30 players. CONGU makes the 95% mandatory over here, regardless of field size.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			It’s your prerogative, I can’t imagine why anyone would score themselves differently to normal.  Our comp requirements are to have entered your CH and PH if you didn’t factor in the 95% for PH it’s a DQ.
		
Click to expand...

As many say there is absolutely no need to enter PH on a card - so to DQ someone who doesn’t enter it or works out 95% incorrectly or not at all is ludicrous.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			Because I would always play off 95% of my course handicap for scoring Stableford, as I would in a comp.
		
Click to expand...

I do this too. Always play off PH not CH. Why would I play off 17 with mates but 16 in a comp? Might as well just get used to 16! Just a strange part of WHS I have never understood.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

Bdill93 said:



			I do this too. Always play off PH not CH. Why would I play off 17 with mates but 16 in a comp? Might as well just get used to 16! *Just a strange part of WHS I have never understood*.
		
Click to expand...

Nail on the head there. Since I play comps infrequently I just save myself the bother of worrying about it. With mates we just use our indexes to do the points, and in comps I just put my scores in and let the computer figure it out.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Nail on the head there. Since I play comps infrequently I just save myself the bother of worrying about it. With mates we just use our indexes to do the points, and in comps I just put my scores in and let the computer figure it out.
		
Click to expand...

You use your Index to do the points? So, if your index was 15.3, for example, you would play off 15?


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			You use your Index to do the points? So, if your index was 15.3, for example, you would play off 15?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah. Actually we did do it the proper way just once recently, on an away course because it absolutely bucketed down and using the course hcap gave us more shots to compensate.   But usually we can't be bothered.


----------



## HampshireHog (Sep 27, 2021)

Bdill93 said:



			I do this too. Always play off PH not CH. Why would I play off 17 with mates but 16 in a comp? Might as well just get used to 16! Just a strange part of WHS I have never understood.
		
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly, I don’t think it’s particularly arduous to subtract 1 from your CH if you are above 11.  It’s just part of WHS, I just get on with it.

We also do 90% thing for a friendly 4BBB, maybe my playing group are just odd?


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah. Actually we did do it the proper way just once recently, on an away course because it absolutely bucketed down and using the course hcap gave us more shots to compensate.   But usually we* can't be bothered*.
		
Click to expand...

If you're all similar handicaps or your Slope is close to 113 (as it is at Grim's Dyke), it won't make much difference, but is looking at a chart by the first tee/pro shop really that onerous?


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			My thoughts exactly, I don’t think it’s particularly arduous to subtract 1 from your CH if you are above 11.  It’s just part of WHS, I just get on with it.

We also do 90% thing for a friendly 4BBB, maybe my playing group are just odd?
		
Click to expand...

I wouldnt call it odd. Id call it the right way to do it


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			My thoughts exactly, I don’t think it’s particularly arduous to *subtract 1 from your CH* if you are above 11.  It’s just part of WHS, I just get on with it.

We also do 90% thing for a friendly 4BBB, maybe my playing group are just odd?
		
Click to expand...

It would be a bit more complex if you were in Scotland, as unrounded CH is used to calculate PH.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			If you're all similar handicaps or your Slope is close to 113 (as it is at Grim's Dyke), it won't make much difference, but is looking at a chart by the first tee/pro shop really that onerous?
		
Click to expand...

Usually well past any such chart before we've even thought about it. It really doesn't matter to us, the three of us have had the same handicaps for ages now pretty much so we just go with what we know.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			Even though people are explaining that it is neither lazy nor poor arithmetic because the accuracy of handicaps in the first place is greater than 0.1? It is probably 1 or greater anyway. So concern about 'precision' in one element is misplaced when the error is greater than that. It would be like complaining about road signs not giving precision to feet and inches, so that you know the distance to your destination. Yes, factually it would be more correct and precise. But in practice, useless precision.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree that inaccuracies of a different calculation mean that the poor and lazy calculation of the average of best eight is excusable.
An improvement would be an improvement. Such an improvement would not be pointless or useless.

To quote a figure (Handicap Index) to one decimal place, it should be accurate to one decimal place when it is derived from 8 other figures. That is why differentials of two decimal places are needed for this to be so.

Otherwise, to use your road sign analogy, Handicap Index should be a whole number as it is derived from 8 figures that are accurate to only one decimal place.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			I disagree that inaccuracies of a different calculation mean that the poor and lazy calculation of the average of best eight is excusable.
An improvement would be an improvement. Such an improvement would not be pointless or useless.

To quote a figure (Handicap Index) to one decimal place, it should be accurate to one decimal place when it is derived from 8 other figures. That is why differentials of two decimal places are needed for this to be so.

Otherwise, to use your road sign analogy, Handicap Index should be a whole number as it is derived from 8 figures that are accurate to only one decimal place.
		
Click to expand...

The HI is not simply "derived from 8 other figures"; as explained earlier, there are hundreds of values used to produce the Course and Slope ratings, upon which everything else is built - rounding during this process has a far greater effect than rounding of the SDs. Therefore it would seem apparent that SDs are rounded to an appropriate level of arithmetic precision (1dp) given the precision of the rating values used to calculate them. It seems rather illogical to argue for greater precision than can be afforded by the input variables on the basis of a desire for accuracy.


----------



## rosecott (Sep 27, 2021)

HampshireHog said:



			It’s your prerogative, I can’t imagine why anyone would score themselves differently to normal.  Our comp requirements are to have entered your CH and PH if you didn’t factor in the 95% for PH it’s a DQ.
		
Click to expand...

You obviously know that DQ is completely wrong in this instance. Why are you and other members not challenging this?


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			The HI is not simply "derived from 8 other figures"; as explained earlier, there are hundreds of values used to produce the Course and Slope ratings, upon which everything else is built - rounding during this process has a far greater effect than rounding of the SDs. Therefore it would seem apparent that SDs are rounded to an appropriate level of arithmetic precision (1dp) given the precision of the rating values used to calculate them. It seems rather illogical to argue for greater precision than can be afforded by the input variables on the basis of a desire for accuracy.
		
Click to expand...

I make no other assumptions, claims of accuracy etc of the whole system or any other aspect of the system.
I merely state, *as a fact*, that the average of 8 calculation is lazy and poor arithmetic, as I have clearly illustrated.


----------



## Wabinez (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			I make no other assumptions, claims of accuracy etc of the whole system or any other aspect of the system.
I merely state, *as a fact*, that the average of 8 calculation is lazy and poor arithmetic. as I have clearly illustrated.
		
Click to expand...

very true.

the point being that no-one really cares. Play well and ge that cut to 2.8 so you can play off 3 rather than 4.

or move to Scotland so you can have 2 decimal points


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 27, 2021)

Wabinez said:



			very true.

the point being that no-one really cares. Play well and ge that cut to 2.8 so you can play off 3 rather than 4.

or move to Scotland so you can have 2 decimal points
		
Click to expand...

Here here


----------



## wjemather (Sep 27, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			I make no other assumptions, claims of accuracy etc of the whole system or any other aspect of the system.
I merely state, *as a fact*, that the average of 8 calculation is lazy and poor arithmetic. as I have clearly illustrated.
		
Click to expand...

While it is a fact that the SD rounding generates variations in the HI result, your conclusion that it is "lazy and poor arithmetic" (or "wrong" or "inaccurate") is incorrect. As others have said, I think it's time you let it go.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			While it is a fact that the rounding generates variations in the result, your conclusion (that it is "lazy and poor arithmetic", or "wrong" or "inaccurate") is incorrect. As others have said, I think it's time you let it go.
		
Click to expand...

I will if you will. The average of 8 calculation does not produce an accurate result to one decimal place sometimes. Is this a true statement? Make no reference to any other calculations.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 27, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Full Course Handicap is equitable for fields of fewer than 30 players - only CONGU (that I'm aware of) has decided to apply the allowance to all competitions.

Why on earth would you want to use 95% allowances in rollups?? Absolutely unnecessary. (As you describe) it's just lower handicappers tipping the odds in their favour.
		
Click to expand...

In fact Australia don't have a distinction between CH and PH. They build it in to one figure called the Daily Handicap.
A side effect is that there is a bias towards lower handicappers in matchplay.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 27, 2021)

rulefan said:



			In fact Australia don't have a distinction between CH and PH.
		
Click to expand...

I realise now that I misread the briefings on the rationale for the WHS. The goal was to have a single _name_, not a single _system. _Even if that meant _more _handicap systems used in different countries than ever before.


----------



## AussieKB (Sep 28, 2021)

rulefan said:



			In fact Australia don't have a distinction between CH and PH. They build it in to one figure called the Daily Handicap.
A side effect is that there is a bias towards lower handicappers in matchplay.
		
Click to expand...

You got that wrong, in Australia the bias is towards high handicaps as they receive full difference, not 3/4 of difference.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 28, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			You got that wrong, in Australia the bias is towards high handicaps as they receive full difference, not 3/4 of difference.
		
Click to expand...

I hadn't realised that Australia were still on 75% prior to WHS. I do not see any mention of it in the 2017 manual.
CONGU switched many years ago when studies by the EGU, SGU and USGA determined that 61% of matches were won by the lower capper using 75%. And even on full difference 55% of matches are won by the lower capper.


----------



## need_my_wedge (Sep 28, 2021)

Not working for my lad up in Scotland. He can't put in general play cards to the IG or EG app, and just been told that the club can't (won't) help him as they have no access to Scottish golf. He's tried registering with the Scottish golf app, but because his home club is in England, he has no ability to put cards in via their app either . So much for global system. Anyone know how he can submit cards without changing golf clubs to a local one in Scotland for the next year?


----------



## wjemather (Sep 28, 2021)

need_my_wedge said:



			Not working for my lad up in Scotland. He can't put in general play cards to the IG or EG app, and just been told that the club can't (won't) help him as they have no access to Scottish golf. He's tried registering with the Scottish golf app, but because his home club is in England, he has no ability to put cards in via their app either . *So much for global system.* Anyone know how he can submit cards without changing golf clubs to a local one in Scotland for the next year?
		
Click to expand...

He simply needs to send his scores from Scotland to the handicap committee at his home club in England, who must then input them directly on the England Golf system (EG have advised clubs of the process). Alternatively, he will need to have a home club in Scotland and provide his handicap record to each club every time he moves between the two, in order for his respective local records can be updated.

There remains a massive misunderstanding of what is meant by world handicap system. It simply means that the underlying mechanisms (i.e. the USGA Course & Slope Rating System, and the various calculations) that are used in producing a Handicap Index are effectively the same throughout the world, which means that handicaps are equivalent and portable.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 28, 2021)

need_my_wedge said:



			Not working for my lad up in Scotland. He can't put in general play cards to the IG or EG app, and just been told that the club can't (won't) help him as they have no access to Scottish golf. He's tried registering with the Scottish golf app, but because his home club is in England, he has no ability to put cards in via their app either . So much for global system. Anyone know how he can submit cards without changing golf clubs to a local one in Scotland for the next year?
		
Click to expand...

Probably join another club with a better handicap Committee, or more helpful handicap Committee? It is a pity that the systems do not talk to each other though, particularly the different UK ones. I guess there are a fair few golfers who travel over the borders a lot to play golf. WHS was very much sold on the fact that is will be a much better system for those playing their golf abroad (which I feel is a very small % of golfers), yet by the sounds of it, it is so far proving worse for those simply wanting to play within different parts of the UK (due to the technology, rather than WHS itself).


----------



## wjemather (Sep 28, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			You got that wrong, in Australia the bias is towards high handicaps as they receive full difference, not 3/4 of difference.
		
Click to expand...

While the bias has shifted significantly towards the higher handicappers from how it was under the old system, according to the statistical analysis that has been presented by the authorities, low handicappers remain slightly favoured.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Sep 28, 2021)

need_my_wedge said:



			Not working for my lad up in Scotland. He can't put in general play cards to the IG or EG app, and just been told that the club can't (won't) help him as they have no access to Scottish golf. He's tried registering with the Scottish golf app, but because his home club is in England, he has no ability to put cards in via their app either . So much for global system. Anyone know how he can submit cards without changing golf clubs to a local one in Scotland for the next year?
		
Click to expand...

Take a photo of completed scorecard and send to home club who will have to submit the score manually.

We have members who have Scottish clubs as their home club and there is a workaround by having 2 CDH numbers but it is still a faff and the above is the easiest method.

Its like going back in time and having to record away score scores in a book and the handicap secretary updating your handicap at some random time in the future.


----------



## need_my_wedge (Sep 28, 2021)

wjemather said:



			He simply needs to send his scores from Scotland to the handicap committee at his home club in England, who must then input them directly on the England Golf system (EG have advised clubs of the process).
		
Click to expand...

This is how I understood it and what I discussed/ suggested with our handicap secretary. He was having none of it, insisting there was nothing he could do for anyone playing at Scottish courses. Doesn't seem much of a way forward unless he joins a club local in Scotland.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Sep 28, 2021)

need_my_wedge said:



			This is how I understood it and what I discussed/ suggested with our handicap secretary. He was having none of it, insisting there was nothing he could do for anyone playing at Scottish courses. Doesn't seem much of a way forward unless he joins a club local in Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

He needs to stop being lazy, yes its a pain in the arse but its what *he* needs to do while the Unions are being childish and not talking to each other....

As I say we have several members who have home clubs in Scotland and plenty of members playing opens across the border as it is not very far away. Handicaps are updated manually on return of scores.

Your handicap secretary must be confusing golf in Scotland with North Korea


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2021)

saving_par said:



			Take a photo of completed scorecard and send to home club who will have to submit the score manually.

We have members who have Scottish clubs as their home club and there is a workaround by having 2 CDH numbers but it is still a faff and the above is the easiest method.

Its like going back in time and having to record away score scores in a book and the handicap secretary updating your handicap at some random time in the future.
		
Click to expand...

It makes a mockery of it being “worldwide” when governing bodies don’t talk to each on any sort of platform and go backwards in terms of being a manual process 

I went to Wales and would have put in a couple of cards but couldn’t be bothered with the hassle


----------



## wjemather (Sep 28, 2021)

need_my_wedge said:



			This is how I understood it and what I discussed/ suggested with our handicap secretary. He was having none of it, insisting there was nothing he could do for anyone playing at Scottish courses. Doesn't seem much of a way forward unless he joins a club local in Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

If your handicap secretaries (your should have at least 3 of them on the handicap committee) don't know what they are doing, this needs to be raised within the club and escalated to your county union if necessary. If they are simply refusing to do the job, they need to to be replaced with people who are prepared to do it.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 28, 2021)

The usage to the word World implies that we'd all be reading the same page not a similar page.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 28, 2021)

need_my_wedge said:



			Not working for my lad up in Scotland. He can't put in general play cards to the IG or EG app, and just been told that the club can't (won't) help him as they have no access to Scottish golf. He's tried registering with the Scottish golf app, but because his home club is in England, he has no ability to put cards in via their app either . So much for global system. Anyone know how he can submit cards without changing golf clubs to a local one in Scotland for the next year?
		
Click to expand...

As mentioned, all clubs through their HC committee have access to entering scores in most parts of the world.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 28, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It makes a mockery of it being “worldwide” when governing bodies don’t talk to each on any sort of platform and go backwards in terms of being a manual process

I went to Wales and would have put in a couple of cards but couldn’t be bothered with the hassle
		
Click to expand...

No real hassle apart from sending the info to the your club. It would be nice if individuals could do it direct but as the app is still in its infancy hopefully it will be one for the future.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2021)

wjemather said:



			If your handicap secretaries (your should have at least 3 of them on the handicap committee) don't know what they are doing, this needs to be raised within the club and escalated to your county union if necessary. If they are simply refusing to do the job, they need to to be replaced with people who are prepared to do it.
		
Click to expand...

Blimey - do you want these club volunteers rounded up and put in the stocks. Do you have a clipboard by any chance ?


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Sep 28, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It makes a mockery of it being “worldwide” when governing bodies don’t talk to each on any sort of platform and go backwards in terms of being a manual process

I went to Wales and would have put in a couple of cards but couldn’t be bothered with the hassle
		
Click to expand...

It is a joke.

Under the old system you could go up to Scotland, play in a comp and know the score would show on your handicap record when the comp was closed.

If the governing bodies want us to record general play scores then provide us with a platform where we can do just that. I get the feeling the Unions are looking out for themselves rather than their golfers....


----------



## wjemather (Sep 28, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Blimey - do you want these club volunteers rounded up and put in the stocks. Do you have a clipboard by any chance ?
		
Click to expand...

So you think it's perfectly ok to volunteer to do a job and then not actually do it (so have presumably volunteered solely to gain some kind of prestige or stature)? Sorry, but no - that is just not good enough.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2021)

wjemather said:



			So you think it's perfectly ok to volunteer to do a job and then not actually do it (so have presumably volunteered solely to gain some kind of prestige or stature)? Sorry, but no - that is just not good enough.
		
Click to expand...

No - I think it’s perfectly ok for willing volunteers to at times not getting everything perfect or everything right , clubs need those volunteers and people start going to “counties” etc isn’t really the great way to go.

Even more so when it’s still a system that’s in its infancy and it’s far from what it says on the tin


----------



## wjemather (Sep 28, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			No - I think it’s perfectly ok for willing volunteers to at times not getting everything perfect or everything right , clubs need those volunteers and people start going to “counties” etc isn’t really the great way to go.

Even more so when it’s still a system that’s in its infancy and it’s far from what it says on the tin
		
Click to expand...

Surely you are not suggesting that club handicap secretaries/committees should just figure it out on their own, with their membership suffering the consequences?

If things cannot be resolved within the club, they absolutely should be escalated to county - this isn't waving a stick, it's simply asking for help - it's what county (and regional) advisors are there for. Such assistance is even more important and valuable when adapting to a new system.


----------



## badgergm (Sep 28, 2021)

Liverpoolphil said:



			No - I think it’s perfectly ok for willing volunteers to at times not getting everything perfect or everything right , clubs need those volunteers and people start going to “counties” etc isn’t really the great way to go.

Even more so when it’s still a system that’s in its infancy and it’s far from what it says on the tin
		
Click to expand...

That’s fair enough if people are making mistake. But this sounds like he can’t be bothered.

Our secretary (there’s on,y one) said the other day that he just deletes general play cards. Because he doesn’t think they should count for handicap.


----------



## badgergm (Sep 28, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			The larger the field, the higher the chance a higher handicapper will win. This is because a players Index is based on the average of a players best 8 scores. The range of these 8 scores will be a lot higher compared to a very low handicapper, thus their best score will be more under the average of these scores (i.e. more under their Index). As the field size increases, and the number of higher handicappers increase, then you increase the odds that one of these higher handicappers will shoot a top score, towards their best in 20. Therefore increase the chances the event will be won by a high handicapper (as this is mathematically lower under their index than a lower indexer could realistically shoot in relation to their Index). The 95% is there to try and remove that imbalance. The main WHS manual recommends the 95% for field sizes over 30 players. CONGU makes the 95% mandatory over here, regardless of field size.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clear explanation. I can see this now.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 28, 2021)

badgergm said:



			That’s fair enough if people are making mistake. But this sounds like he can’t be bothered.

Our secretary (there’s on,y one) said the other day that he just deletes general play cards. Because he doesn’t think they should count for handicap.
		
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^ should definitely be reported to county.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 28, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Surely you are not suggesting that club handicap secretaries/committees should just figure it out on their own, with their membership suffering the consequences?

If things cannot be resolved within the club, they absolutely should be escalated to county - this isn't waving a stick, it's simply asking for help - it's what county (and regional) advisors are there for. Such assistance is even more important and valuable when adapting to a new system.
		
Click to expand...

This can be a problem with the communication between county and clubs especially if they are proprietary clubs. Luckily our owner invites me onto all county meetings and have a good relationship with county & regional officials but this isn’t always the case.

Same committees won’t know how easy it is to get good info out there from SOME counties.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 28, 2021)

badgergm said:



			That’s fair enough if people are making mistake. But this sounds like he can’t be bothered.

*Our secretary (there’s on,y one) said the other day that he just deletes general play cards. Because he doesn’t think they should count for handicap*.
		
Click to expand...

If that is true, that is shocking. If there is more to the story, such as he deletes the ones that were not pre-registered (Club V1 gives time stamps) before the round, then fair enough. But, absolutely incorrect if all general play rounds are just deleted. I'm surprised the members that submit scores are not starting a revolution.


----------



## IanM (Sep 28, 2021)

badgergm said:



			Our secretary (there’s on,y one) said the other day that he just deletes general play cards. Because he doesn’t think they should count for handicap.
		
Click to expand...

Makes a nice change to hear, purely as a contrast from those who think a good shot on the driving range should be entered for handicap!  

I wonder what else he does?  Radicals are usually radical about more than one thing.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 28, 2021)

saving_par said:



			It is a joke.

Under the old system you could go up to Scotland, play in a comp and know the score would show on your handicap record when the comp was closed.

If the governing bodies want us to record general play scores then provide us with a platform where we can do just that. I get the feeling the Unions are looking out for themselves rather than their golfers....
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that Scottish clubs had an interface with the England Golf CDH. I thought each of the 4 CONGU Unions/Associations had their own independent CDH. Are you sure the hosting club didn't email to your home club?
But in one sentence you refer to comps and in the next to general play. How did you communicate supplementary scores to your club?

Of course, previously there was no point in countries around the world communicating scores because the fundamental systems were so different. But the near commonality of WHS will encourage national unions to produce a universal interface. I believe dotgolf are working on it.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 28, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			If that is true, that is shocking. If there is more to the story, such as he deletes the ones that were not pre-registered (Club V1 gives time stamps) before the round, then fair enough. But, absolutely incorrect if all general play rounds are just deleted. I'm surprised the members that submit scores are not starting a revolution.
		
Click to expand...

I'm surprised the county and EG haven't come down on him like a ton of bricks


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Sep 28, 2021)

rulefan said:



			I wasn't aware that Scottish clubs had an interface with the England Golf CDH. I thought each of the 4 CONGU Unions/Associations had their own independent CDH. Are you sure the hosting club didn't email to your home club?
But in one sentence you refer to comps and in the next to general play. How did you communicate supplementary scores to your club?

Of course, previously there was no point in countries around the world communicating scores because the fundamental systems were so different. But the near commonality of WHS will encourage national unions to produce a universal interface. I believe dotgolf are working on it.
		
Click to expand...

I was referring to pre WHS when the comp scores were sent to home club via IG, club systems or whatever when comp was closed. The good old days  when CDH was acceptable across the border...

Don't know about supplementries pre WHS as I was cat 1. Don't know anyone who actually put one in at home never mind an away course. Everybody either played a comp or didn't play a comp, their choice.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 28, 2021)

rulefan said:



			I wasn't aware that Scottish clubs had an interface with the England Golf CDH. I thought each of the 4 CONGU Unions/Associations had their own independent CDH. Are you sure the hosting club didn't email to your home club?
		
Click to expand...

As someone who lived in England but for a while kept my home club in Scotland, and then switched but still came "home" to play at my lifelong club as well as many Opens, the CONGU system linked up, there was none of this nonsense that you're getting now. 




rulefan said:



			Of course, previously there was no point in countries around the world communicating scores because the fundamental systems were so different. But the near commonality of WHS will encourage national unions to produce a universal interface. I believe dotgolf are working on it.
		
Click to expand...

Encourage? It should have been implicitly done as part of the roll out, that it isn't, and worse, that within the CONGU nations we've actually regressed is a shocking indictment of the capabilities of our golf administrators, IMO.

They made huge play of the fact that you could "take your handicap anywhere", despite literally nobody asking for that to be a thing, and yet can't actually upload a score from any other country on the planet when you try to "take it anywhere", even your nearest english speaking neighbours. Thumbs doon!


----------



## rulefan (Sep 28, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			The larger the field, the higher the chance a higher handicapper will win. This is because a players Index is based on the average of a players best 8 scores. The range of these 8 scores will be a lot higher compared to a very low handicapper, thus their best score will be more under the average of these scores (i.e. more under their Index). As the field size increases, and the number of higher handicappers increase, then you increase the odds that one of these higher handicappers will shoot a top score, towards their best in 20. Therefore increase the chances the event will be won by a high handicapper (as this is mathematically lower under their index than a lower indexer could realistically shoot in relation to their Index). The 95% is there to try and remove that imbalance. The main WHS manual recommends the 95% for field sizes over 30 players. CONGU makes the 95% mandatory over here, regardless of field size.
		
Click to expand...

This relates to stroke play of course. The field size is only 2 in matches.

The HI is only concerned with the best 8 strokeplay rounds. A low capper will have a narrow range with his worst score not to far away. A high capper is likely to have many more scores higher than scores lower than the range. His 'normal' scores are likely to be significantly higher than his Index or CH. Whereas a low capper will be close to his Index or CH most of the time.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Sep 28, 2021)

rulefan said:



			This relates to stroke play of course. The field size is only 2 in matches.

The HI is only concerned with the best 8 strokeplay rounds. A low capper will have a narrow range with his worst score not to far away. A high capper is likely to have many more scores higher than scores lower than the range. His 'normal' scores are likely to be significantly higher than his Index or CH. Whereas a low capper will be close to his Index or CH most of the time.
		
Click to expand...

Last sentance is very generalising, my scores for example range from 69 to 90 this year and my index is 2.5.

Thats just the rounds where I'm trying my absolute best and not counting when I have given up. Big assumption that low handicappers don't have car crashes, very easy to get on the bogey train and stay on it when you are having a bad day or the course is a proper test of golf.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 28, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			As someone who lived in England but for a while kept my home club in Scotland, and then switched but still came "home" to play at my lifelong club as well as many Opens, the CONGU system linked up, there was none of this nonsense that you're getting now.



Encourage? It should have been implicitly done as part of the roll out, that it isn't, and worse, that within the CONGU nations we've actually regressed is a shocking indictment of the capabilities of our golf administrators, IMO.

They made huge play of the fact that you could "take your handicap anywhere", despite literally nobody asking for that to be a thing, and yet can't actually upload a score from any other country on the planet when you try to "take it anywhere", even your nearest english speaking neighbours. Thumbs doon! 

Click to expand...

Blame Scotland  they even wrote their own database/system. The CONGU supporting ISVs had to write two interfaces.
But just think of the software costs and testing time involved if everyone waited for one world wide data base.

But of course *you* can "take your handicap anywhere". It's just that you can't do it electronically 

But I'm curious about _"the CONGU system linked up"_
Do you know how this was done? Do you know which ISV software was used?  Which CDH number did you use (EG or SG)?


----------



## wjemather (Sep 28, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Encourage? It should have been implicitly done as part of the roll out, that it isn't, and worse, that within the CONGU nations we've actually regressed is a shocking indictment of the capabilities of our golf administrators, IMO.

They made huge play of the fact that you could "take your handicap anywhere", despite literally nobody asking for that to be a thing, and yet can't actually upload a score from any other country on the planet when you try to "take it anywhere", even your nearest english speaking neighbours. Thumbs doon! 

Click to expand...

You'd have to ask Scottish Golf why they decided to diverge from the rest of CONGU when selecting their WHS platform supplier. Also, do not underestimate the scale of the work required to get different systems (many of which are located in different countries and subject to different laws) talking to each other while ensuring integrity and security of data.

And of course, you _can _now take your handicap anywhere. And many people _were _calling for a portable handicap (e.g. our annual club trippers to Portugal who now will not be spotting the ex-pats a few extra strokes). The rest of it will get there, but (as you and others are so keen to observe) things like cross-jurisdiction score submission are only needed for a very small minority of scores, so were obviously not prioritised for initial implementation.


----------



## IanM (Sep 28, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Blame Scotland
But of course *you* can "take your handicap anywhere". It's just that you can't do it electronically 

Click to expand...

Yes, those Scots eh??  !     Well, the Welsh are up to it too, you can't add a course that I can also see from my bedroom window cos it is over water in England!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 28, 2021)

rulefan said:



			Blame Scotland  they even wrote their own database/system. The CONGU supporting ISVs had to write two interfaces.
But just think of the software costs and testing time involved if everyone waited for one world wide data base.

But of course *you* can "take your handicap anywhere". It's just that you can't do it electronically 

*But I'm curious about "the CONGU system linked up"
Do you know how this was done? Do you know which ISV software was used? * Which CDH number did you use (EG or SG)?
		
Click to expand...

Oh believe me I blame SGU for a lot 


Regarding the bold bit, HDID/Club2000 had a bigger grip on the market back then, we're talking pre-2010, and it's coming back to me now. I think you had to manually report back to my English club, but the process was simpler than now, they could find where I'd played from a drop down menu, so I apologise, my previous rant was misplaced, however we're a number of years on, we shouldn't be regressing at all, new launches should have as a minimum the capabilities of the existing software packages.

Did I say I blamed Scottish Golf?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 28, 2021)

wjemather said:



			You'd have to ask Scottish Golf why they decided to diverge from the rest of CONGU when selecting their WHS platform supplier. Also, do not underestimate the scale of the work required to get different systems (many of which are located in different countries and subject to different laws) talking to each other while ensuring integrity and security of data.
.
		
Click to expand...

My point being, there was a world system being introduced, that should have gone out to tender to a company who knew what they were doing to cover everyone, unfortunately the company that have their hands on the SG offering can't even cope with one country. Of course it's not easy, does mean that we should accept this mess? You don't launch until you're ready


----------



## IanM (Sep 28, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			does that we should accept this mess? You don't launch until you're ready
		
Click to expand...

Apparently yes.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 29, 2021)

I know how the system works and I know why this has happened but it still feels a bit wrong when you shoot you 3rd best score of the year and you don't get cut because the score that dropped out of the top 20 was exactly the same as the score today......
Elated but deflated at the same time.


----------



## AussieKB (Sep 30, 2021)

In OZ we have had this system for years and I have seen people win an event and go out a full shot, and I am not joking, so get used to it.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 30, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			In OZ we have had this system for years and I have seen people win an event and go out a full shot, and I am not joking, so get used to it.
		
Click to expand...

Go out? Do you mean go up? Go down?


----------



## rulefan (Sep 30, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Go out? Do you mean go up? Go down?
		
Click to expand...

It could be either.
My wife came second in a comp and came down a stroke. Her friend won and went up one.
It depends on the values of the old 20th, new score and old average scores.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 30, 2021)

rulefan said:



			It could be either.
My wife came second in a comp and came down a stroke. Her friend won and went up one.
It depends on the values of the old 20th, new and old average scores.
		
Click to expand...

I just don't get his expression of go out


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 30, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			In OZ we have had this system for years and I have seen people win an event and go out a full shot, and I am not joking, so get used to it.
		
Click to expand...

And yet "the world" decided this would be great. Bonkers


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 30, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			I just don't get his expression of go out
		
Click to expand...

Yeah I think he meant up. Going down would be more akin to going 'in' I think.


----------



## AussieKB (Sep 30, 2021)

pauljames87 said:



			Go out? Do you mean go up? Go down?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## AussieKB (Sep 30, 2021)

Sorry, Aussie expression, yes go up a full shot.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 30, 2021)

From observed difficulties at my club and what I've read on here, people are still struggling with what handicap to play off when playing casual golf with individual stableford format.
At my club and on here I've often heard something along the lines of, "...we don't have to (don't bother to) apply the 95%".  This, in my view, is nonsense.

This confusion that many have here would not have happened if we had used the OZ system as there is simply no such thing as a Course Handicap.
So "playing off our course handicaps" never arises. They have GA Index and Daily Handicap and nothing in between.
I am not advocating that we use the OZ system, merely pointing out facts, again.
The OZ system means that any course and any tees if you score 36 stableford you are as near to your handicap as you can be. (pending PCC).
At my course it is 35 from the Whites and 37 from the yellows to be as close as possible to your handicap. (pending PCC)




The calculation of a differential is a little more involved than here.




If this information stimulates any further discussion, please do not address any criticism towards me over the merits or otherwise of the information that I have supplied.
If you don't like it, please move on to the next post with no further thought, thank you.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 30, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			From observed difficulties at my club and what I've read on here, people are still struggling with what handicap to play off when playing casual golf with individual stableford format.
At my club and on here I've often heard something along the lines of, "...we don't have to (don't bother to) apply the 95%".  This, in my view, is nonsense.

This confusion that many have here would not have happened if we had used the OZ system as there is simply no such thing as a Course Handicap.
So "playing off our course handicaps" never arises. They have GA Index and Daily Handicap and nothing in between.
I am not advocating that we use the OZ system, merely pointing out facts, again.
The OZ system means that any course and any tees if you score 36 stableford you are as near to your handicap as you can be. (pending PCC).
At my course it is 35 from the Whites and 37 from the yellows to be as close as possible to your handicap. (pending PCC)

View attachment 38743


The calculation of a differential is a little more involved than here.

View attachment 38744


If this information stimulates any further discussion, please do not address any criticism towards me over the merits or otherwise of the information that I have supplied.
If you don't like it, please move on to the next post with no further thought, thank you.
		
Click to expand...

Having read through the Oz WHS manual a while ago, personally I'm a much bigger fan of it than what they decided to do in the UK. Cr-Par was included for a start, which pretty much eliminates the confusion of golfers not understanding why their handicap does not change like they'd expect when they play a much easier or harder course (in absolute terms). And, there is no confusion over the whole Playing Handicap nonsense, whether it be casual golf or competition. Of course, there will be others that say we in the UK have it right and it should not be questioned. Of course, for that argument to hold, we must say that Oz and the US (who include CR-Par at least) are inferior to us.


----------



## Beedee (Sep 30, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			From observed difficulties at my club and what I've read on here, people are still struggling with what handicap to play off when playing casual golf with individual stableford format.
At my club and on here I've often heard something along the lines of, "...we don't have to (don't bother to) apply the 95%".  This, in my view, is nonsense.

<lots of stuff about the Oz system>

If this information stimulates any further discussion, please do not address any criticism towards me over the merits or otherwise of the information that I have supplied.
If you don't like it, please move on to the next post with no further thought, thank you.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree with your first point.  To me in stableford, the course handicap is far more useful a number.  It's the one that determines when to pick up. I know you mentioned casual play, but I'd rather be used to the pick up number when I'm playing (badly) on a hole, than blobbing in the comp, and then realising I still had a shot left for handicap.  I'd rather lose the point after the round.

Re- the Oz system.  If only we could. 

If the daily handicap already includes the low handicap placater adjustment, do the Australians get 107% of the difference in match play?  Would be fun to hear the howls from the low handicaps in this country at the thought of it.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 30, 2021)

Beedee said:



			I disagree with your first point.  To me in stableford, the course handicap is far more useful a number.  It's the one that determines when to pick up. I know you mentioned casual play, but I'd rather be used to the pick up number when I'm playing (badly) on a hole, than blobbing in the comp, and then realising I still had a shot left for handicap.  I'd rather lose the point after the round.

Re- the Oz system.  If only we could.

If the daily handicap already includes the low handicap placater adjustment, do the Australians get 107% of the difference in match play?  Would be fun to hear the howls from the low handicaps in this country at the thought of it.
		
Click to expand...

Pre WHS, CONGU and the USGA suggested that to establish parity in match play the allowance for the high capper should be up to 120%.


----------



## wjemather (Sep 30, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			From observed difficulties at my club and what I've read on here, people are still struggling with what handicap to play off when playing casual golf with individual stableford format.
At my club and on here I've often heard something along the lines of, "...we don't have to (don't bother to) apply the 95%".  *This, in my view, is nonsense.*

Click to expand...

Your view is contrary to the advice given by CONGU and the national unions.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 30, 2021)

Beedee said:



			I disagree with your first point.  To me in stableford, the course handicap is far more useful a number.  It's the one that determines when to pick up. I know you mentioned casual play, but I'd rather be used to the pick up number when I'm playing (badly) on a hole, than blobbing in the comp, and then realising I still had a shot left for handicap.  I'd rather lose the point after the round.

Re- the Oz system.  If only we could.

If the daily handicap already includes the low handicap placater adjustment, do the Australians get 107% of the difference in match play?  Would be fun to hear the howls from the low handicaps in this country at the thought of it.
		
Click to expand...

Oh, I apologise. I failed to add the qualifier to "when playing casual golf" - when not submitting scores for handicap adjustment, merely playing individual stableford format in a group.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 30, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Your view is contrary to the advice given by CONGU and the national unions.
		
Click to expand...

Nonsense


----------



## wjemather (Sep 30, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Nonsense
		
Click to expand...

Really? Ok, here's a few quotes from the guidance & educational materials that have been issued:

"players... should play with reference to their Course Handicaps in such events _(Stableford, par/bogey, Max Score)_ and let the software deal with the competition outcome."​
*"It *_(Playing Handicap)_* is only used for competition purposes"*​
"Golfers do not need to calculate it _(Playing Handicap)_ (it is generated before their round)"​
"Golfers should continue to play in the mindset of their Course Handicap in competition rounds"​
"The focus for golfers should not be on their Playing Handicap."​


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 30, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Really? Ok, here's a few quotes from the guidance & educational materials that have been issued:

"players... should play with reference to their Course Handicaps in such events _(Stableford, par/bogey, Max Score)_ and let the software deal with the competition outcome."​
*"It *_(Playing Handicap)_* is only used for competition purposes"*​
"Golfers do not need to calculate it _(Playing Handicap)_ (it is generated before their round)"​
"Golfers should continue to play in the mindset of their Course Handicap in competition rounds"​
"The focus for golfers should not be on their Playing Handicap."​

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the guidance, but how it works in practice is another matter.

Outside of this forum, and one or 2 well educated members I know (who were also on Committee) I do not know of a single golfer who thinks Course handicap when playing in a competition. Their Playing handicap is put on their card by the pro, and that is the handicap they focus on. And why wouldn't they? After all, they are competing in a comp and what to know how they are doing in that comp. They then come to their next round, and simply quote their Playing handicap to me when I ask what their handicap is, simply because that is what they played off last time. Often they need to run back to club, check board for course handicap, which is different to what they told me. 

I am guessing this is not an issue in Austrailia. They obviously felt their way was best. We felt our way was best. Obviously, I'd imagine I am well aware of the details of WHS and it's implementation in the UK. Doesn't mean I like the direction some of it went in. Also doesn't mean I hate it all. For me, there is some good, some not so good, and I feel room for improvement.


----------



## IanM (Sep 30, 2021)

And therein lies the difference in perspective and hence the previous posts

Golfers are playing the comp, so focus on the playing handicap, while they play. 

The Other folk don't play.  They sit and study manuals.

It might be in the "educational materials " but that doesn't make it logical.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 1, 2021)

In OZ with have an app on our phones, all you need to do is enter the Course and which Tee you are playing from and it tells you your Daiy Handicap, quite simple. Since the WHS was introduced here it has been changed at least 4-6 times and still it causes controversy, just last Wednesday our Club Captain openly stated at presentations that it is a joke system. (his handicap is 6, mine 4)

Anyone on a 15 and over handicap love the system, when first introduced a single handicap player did not win one event in the first year, this has now changed but when some scores come in with over 42-48 points it takes us out of any chance of winning.

Does not matter what system they come up with there will always be some people trying to manipulate it.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 1, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			In OZ with have an app on our phones, all you need to do is enter the Course and which Tee you are playing from and it tells you your Daiy Handicap, quite simple. Since the WHS was introduced here it has been changed at least 4-6 times and still it causes controversy, just last Wednesday our Club Captain openly stated at presentations that it is a joke system. (his handicap is 6, mine 4)

Anyone on a 15 and over handicap love the system, when first introduced a single handicap player did not win one event in the first year, this has now changed but when some scores come in with over 42-48 points it takes us out of any chance of winning.

Does not matter what system they come up with there will always be some people trying to manipulate it.
		
Click to expand...

At my previous club (I've recently switched), when WHS came in winning scores generally jumped significantly, and the winners of those comps also generally had much higher handicaps than before. This was partly inevitable, because higher handicappers (before WHS) were awarded several more shots compared to low handicappers once WHS kicked in. Furthermore, several comps were dominated by relatively new members, with winning scores close to 50 points. That club has very cheap membership, so it certainly attracts many novice golfers keen to get into the game, so it is perhaps effected more by players with new handicaps playing in comps.

Not sure about new club, since I arrived they ban anyone playing in comps using a handicap over 24.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 1, 2021)

But surely more high handicappers winning is a good thing, one of the improvements WHS was to bring, and if people are noticing it, then they should not be surprised? It shows the WHS is indeed an improvement on the UCS.

It is also better from an intuitive or understanding of what your expected score should be. With UCS, tge average score of a twenthy something handicapper should have been 31 or 32 points. Most never understood that, leaving them with a feeling that they couldnt play to their handicap - which they took to be 36pts - even though they were.

And related to that is another benefit in my view, of a faster up correction of handicap when scores disimprove. The UCS was too slow on this, despite the theoretical backup facility for manual correction by hc cttee and tge annual review. The better response of WHS will feel fairer and more satisfactory to more golfers as a result.

The only area where WHS is a clamourous failure is in it not being a single world hc system as was its headline purpose. Regional variations on a theme should not have been allowed if that were truly the goal. Either it is a single good system for all, or it isnt. Would I be right that there are actually more handicap systems in operation in different countries now, as many were prompted to tweak their own implementation of WHS rather than simply implememt it as drafted ?


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 1, 2021)

I have no problem with high handicappers winning, but with scores in the mid 40's, it is not what was predicted or wanted, highest score I have seen here is 52 points. 

Under the old system it took at least 10 bad rounds to go out 1 full shot and like I said earlier I have seen the winner on the day go out a full shot, you are being handicapped on a score you posted 20 rounds ago.

Here in OZ we play a lot more competitions then in the U.K. I myself would put in about 120-140 competition rounds a year for handicap purposes, not counting 4BBB that you can still be handicapped on. 

Yes I agree that there should be one WHS but that is not the case, so why call it a World Handicap System when every country has tweaked it too there own needs.


----------



## sweaty sock (Oct 1, 2021)

Ive got 6 scores coming off in the next 7 rounds, the winter rating on my course is so low I have little to no chance of getting near my good rounds, its quite likely I'll be off at least 4 shots higher than I am today.  Those 4 shots will take me from my current handicap which is my lowest ever to my highest handicap in 15 years.  

So it looks like my golfing ability has potentially improved, or regressed 15 years, is winter golf sandbagger heaven?


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 1, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			Under the old system it took at least 10 bad rounds to go out 1 full shot and like I said earlier I have seen the winner on the day go out a full shot, you are being handicapped on a score you posted 20 rounds ago.
		
Click to expand...

Which is the great improvement of WHS over UCS. UCS handicapped you according to rounds 50 rounds ago - it NEVER discarded history. So yes, 20 rounds seems reasonable as that is probably somewhere in the upper average of numbers of counting cards people will put in in a year.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 1, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			Having read through the Oz WHS manual a while ago, personally I'm a much bigger fan of it than what they decided to do in the UK. Cr-Par was included for a start, which pretty much eliminates the confusion of golfers not understanding why their handicap does not change like they'd expect when they play a much easier or harder course (in absolute terms). And, there is no confusion over the whole Playing Handicap nonsense, whether it be casual golf or competition. Of course, there will be others that say we in the UK have it right and it should not be questioned. Of course, for that argument to hold, we must say that Oz and the US (who include CR-Par at least) are inferior to us.
		
Click to expand...

I played an event at the Dukes (ironically run by Scottish Golf) where whoever was doing the handicaps used the US system of CR-par, meaning everyone got an extra 1.9 "strokes". I was on 7.2 (or maybe 7.0, can't recall), I ended up playing off eleven and went net 7 under for the day.

I haven't played off 11 since the 80s, last year I was a 5, if that's an eg. of their system then no thank you. 

What I do agree with is the 3 handicaps nonsense, no wonder folks are struggling to get their heads round it, your h'cap index should translate to a playing handicap and that's it.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 1, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I haven't played off 11 since the 80s, last year I was a 5, if that's an eg. of their system then no thank you.
		
Click to expand...

Your mistake is comparing apples and oranges. Surely you agree witg a more equitable system, whatever the nunber on the current scale. Thats would be like saying you dont want distances changed to km from miles as it would move your golf course further away from your home.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 1, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			Your mistake is comparing apples and oranges. Surely you agree witg a more equitable system, whatever the nunber on the current scale. Thats would be like saying you dont want distances changed to km from miles as it would move your golf course further away from your home.
		
Click to expand...

But it wasn't more equitable, how is giving every player in the field another 1.9 shots equitable? It's a pointless addition to an already stupid system.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 1, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			Which is the great improvement of WHS over UCS. UCS handicapped you according to rounds 50 rounds ago - it NEVER discarded history. So yes, 20 rounds seems reasonable as that is probably somewhere in the upper average of numbers of counting cards people will put in in a year.
		
Click to expand...

Just checked my handicap record, last round was yesterday 30/9/21 and 20th was 15/8/21 that's just over 6 weeks, and on occasions it is less, normal for me is 5-6 weeks. Think the average golfer for 20 rounds here is 12 weeks.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Oct 1, 2021)

wjemather said:



			Really? Ok, here's a few quotes from the guidance & educational materials that have been issued:

"players... should play with reference to their Course Handicaps in such events _(Stableford, par/bogey, Max Score)_ and let the software deal with the competition outcome."​
*"It *_(Playing Handicap)_* is only used for competition purposes"*​
"Golfers do not need to calculate it _(Playing Handicap)_ (it is generated before their round)"​
"Golfers should continue to play in the mindset of their Course Handicap in competition rounds"​
"The focus for golfers should not be on their Playing Handicap."​

Click to expand...

Your bit in bold regarding competition purposes has subsequently been clarified with the words, "...ensures a fair and equal game when playing with or competing against one another" and this includes casual, social and informal golf where scores are not being submitted for handicap assessment and adjustment. There are not, as far as I know, differing rules of handicapping for golf where scores are not being submitted for handicap assessment and when the scores are being submitted for handicap assessment. I have seen only one such set of Rules of Handicapping adopted by England Golf and these rules apply to organised club competition golf and casual, social and informal golf, in the same way, regarding what Playing Handicap should be used according to the chosen format.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Oct 1, 2021)

Backsticks said:



			Your mistake is comparing apples and oranges. Surely you agree witg a more equitable system, whatever the nunber on the current scale. Thats would be like saying you dont want distances changed to km from miles as it would move your golf course further away from your home.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this.  Any handicap system is arbitrary - and comparing a score from two different systems doesn't make sense.  Maybe under the new system you have to give a shot or two more to someone than you would under the old sytem.  It is just two different arbitrary systems - you can't say one is right and one is wrong.  Though it is of course perfectly reasonable to say that under system 1 player A hs an advantage and under system 2 player B has an advantage.  There is nothing inherently right or wrong about either.

I have a matchplay final coming though, and if I win, it would be unreasonable to not thank WHS along with greenkeeprs and opponents!


----------



## wjemather (Oct 1, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			Your bit in bold regarding competition purposes has subsequently been clarified with the words, "...ensures a fair and equal game when playing with or competing against one another" and this includes casual, social and informal golf where scores are not being submitted for handicap assessment and adjustment. There are not, as far as I know, differing rules of handicapping for golf where scores are not being submitted for handicap assessment and when the scores are being submitted for handicap assessment. I have seen only one such set of Rules of Handicapping adopted by England Golf and these rules apply to organised club competition golf and casual, social and informal golf, in the same way, regarding what Playing Handicap should be used according to the chosen format.
		
Click to expand...

*"It is only used for competition purposes"* requires no clarification, and none is given. Your refusal to ever admit you were mistaken is tiresome. I'm done.


----------



## IanMcC (Oct 1, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			Just checked my handicap record, last round was yesterday 30/9/21 and 20th was 15/8/21 that's just over 6 weeks, and on occasions it is less, normal for me is 5-6 weeks. Think the average golfer for 20 rounds here is 12 weeks.
		
Click to expand...

6 weeks seems exceptionally fast to me. I reckon I play quite a bit (we have 3 acceptable comps per week in the summer), but my 20th score in my record is 16th June. So just over 3 months to refresh my record completely.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 1, 2021)

IanMcC said:



			6 weeks seems exceptionally fast to me. I reckon I play quite a bit (we have 3 acceptable comps per week in the summer), but my 20th score in my record is 16th June. So just over 3 months to refresh my record completely.
		
Click to expand...

I play normally in comps Wednesday Thursday and Saturday, plus Veterans every 2nd week on a Monday, plus have the opportunity to play in a Tuesday and Sunday competition, helps that I am retired.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 1, 2021)

IanMcC said:



			6 weeks seems exceptionally fast to me. I reckon I play quite a bit (we have 3 acceptable comps per week in the summer), but my 20th score in my record is 16th June. So just over 3 months to refresh my record completely.
		
Click to expand...

I'm on about a 7 week cycle. Varies club to club, some clubs like Newmacher for eg have 4 medals a week. Very easy to have large handicap variances playing that often.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Oct 1, 2021)

wjemather said:



*"It is only used for competition purposes"* requires no clarification, and none is given. Your refusal to ever admit you were mistaken is tiresome. I'm done.
		
Click to expand...

I too, had that same interpretation as you when I first read the WHS bumf last year that the 95% would only apply to formal organised club competition rounds *only.*
I realised, with increased reading and research, communication on forums with people who had already gained more knowledge than me, that any one sentence read on its own did not necessarily mean an absolute truth at that time. I changed my view due to advice from @Swango1980 and others like him who have been well ahead of me in understanding since Nov last year.
Establishing the facts from the first drafts of WHS info was a tricky business. Their info appeared sketchy at times.
I think I understand why that was - although this has taken some time for me to realise.
The early WHS info had to keep to the submitting of scores and the adjustment of handicaps and not venture into club competitions in too much depth. That area was to be governed by different regional and national organisations with some scope for autonomy at county and club level. Hence when it came to playing handicaps and allowances the word "recommended" was used. When England Golf adopted the Rules of Handicapping this was changed to "mandatory".
I never think that I have perfect knowledge and I certainly do not have perfect knowledge of the Rules Of Handicapping as adopted by England Golf.
But when I am unsure about something, I do my best to find out facts, read further, consult others etc.
Cherry picking single sentences from the advice and guidance that has been changing, increasing and adapting is probably not helpful as anyone can then come back with more cherry-picked sentences - as I did to your annoyance. And for that, as I am guilty of cherry-picking, I apologise to you and everyone here.
People with differing views will tend to find each other tiresome - not much I can do about that I'm afraid.
My interpretation of "competition purposes" includes social, casual, informal golf and this is why "playing with and against others" has been included in the Rules of Handicapping.
But I could be wrong.
It would appear odd that two people in a club competition, could have different handicaps in that club competition than if they chose to play against each other on the same day on the same course in the same format, but not in the club competition where the field was the same size in both groups. Never used to happen before and I don't see why it should happen now.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 1, 2021)

Voyager EMH said:



			It would appear odd that* two people* in a club competition, could have different handicaps in that club competition than if they chose to *play against each other* *(I assume you mean strokeplay format)* on the same day on the same course in the same format, but not in the club competition where the field was the same size in both groups. Never used to happen before and I don't see why it should happen now.
		
Click to expand...

There is no reason why the organisers of the 'non-competition' event shouldn't award prizes based on the PH.


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 1, 2021)

IanMcC said:



			6 weeks seems exceptionally fast to me. I reckon I play quite a bit (we have 3 acceptable comps per week in the summer), but my 20th score in my record is 16th June. So just over 3 months to refresh my record completely.
		
Click to expand...

My 20th round is from October 2019.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 1, 2021)

wjemather said:



*"It is only used for competition purposes"* requires no clarification, and none is given. Your refusal to ever admit you were mistaken is tiresome. I'm done.
		
Click to expand...

If I play in a roll up with 9 or 10 friends, is this not a competition? Is the definition of a competition include that it must only be something organised by Committee. If organised between friends, it must bot be called a competition? 

I'd have thought we could call it a competition, thus we should follow England Golfs guidelines on Playing Handicap if we were to apply WHS correctly


----------



## Springveldt (Oct 1, 2021)

ger147 said:



			So you played around or just under your handicap and he played a good bit better than his?  And therefore he won.

I don't see anything particularly out of the ordinary re. a 15 handicapper being +8 thru 17 holes, would have been a very nice cut in CONGU old money if done in a counting comp and well within the standard deviation of scores that many 15 handicappers are capable of.  My best gross score is +5 in competition and my best 9 holes is -1 gross and my lowest ever playing handicap is 11.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies for digging up an older comment, was just reading through the thread.

A 15 handicapper being 7 shots better than handicap doesn't happen as often as you think. According to this https://oga.org/sites/default/files/Probability Table.pdf it's a 1 in 552 rounds. Personally, my best net round is -6 which was me shooting a 76 (+6) as a 12 handicapper.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 1, 2021)

Banchory Buddha said:



			But it wasn't more equitable, how is giving every player in the field another 1.9 shots equitable? It's a pointless addition to an already stupid system.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, relatively speaking it doesn't matter whether CR-Par is included or not (except in simply how the numbers round up). 

However, it makes sense to make it fit to the relative difficulty of the course. A scratch golfer, in the UK, plays of scratch on every single course. At my old course, short and easy, they'd need 39 points to play to handicap. Then they'd go to a course like Whistling Straits back tees, and 31 points is playing to handicap. OK if they compare their score to CR, but it is clear most golfers compare their score to par. 31 points at the tough will generally feel deflating compare to 39 at the easy course. 

Go to US, at the easy course they'd have a handicap of -3 (plus 3 golf speak). Then get to Whistling Straits and be off 5.


----------



## Springveldt (Oct 1, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			I play normally in comps Wednesday Thursday and Saturday, plus Veterans every 2nd week on a Monday, plus have the opportunity to play in a Tuesday and Sunday competition, helps that I am retired.
		
Click to expand...

I've played more golf this year than in the last 3 years as I've been able to get out for some of the Wednesday comps this year. My 20th round is from 22/05/2021. I'd say the previous 2 years I would have been lucky to get 20 rounds in the whole season.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 1, 2021)

AussieKB said:



			I play normally in comps Wednesday Thursday and Saturday, plus Veterans every 2nd week on a Monday, plus have the opportunity to play in a Tuesday and Sunday competition, helps that I am retired.
		
Click to expand...

That would be exceptional by a long shot. When hc sec some years ago I remember looking at it. One of the end of year review reports used to show it. And excluding the few times a year golfers, we had about 200 genuinely active full members of the mens club. The average came out at 12 point somthing qualifying competition returns per year. 6 or 8 was not uncommon. 20 was about the number for golfers we would have considered very active. We would have non qualifying winter rules for 4-5 months per year, and a lot of the play for those quite active golfers would also include match play trophy matches, interclub teams, fourballs, and scrambles or whatever, for men who generally just had one competitive game each weekend. There werent really many higher though a handful were in the 30-60 range - generally like yourself who were retired and playing opens regularly during the week through the summer. Or going further afield during the winter months to play some links courses. I think we could guess that a sample from those posting here are more likely to be on the higher end of golfing frequency too rather than the majority for who it is a lesser interest.


----------



## badgergm (Oct 5, 2021)

rulefan said:



			I'm surprised the county and EG haven't come down on him like a ton of bricks
		
Click to expand...

I’m sure he’s exaggerating. But I’m equally sure he does little or no policing. I pointed out the other day that someone had somehow submitted a card for handicap from a team comp ( was a low round). “Yeah, they’ve been doing dodgy stuff all year”. To be honest I’m surprised he knew it wasn’t allowed  to count.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 25, 2021)

Have just flushed my 20th card through the system again, 1st was on 19/9 and the 20th was on 23/10
I played off a 2 handicap once, 3 twice, 4 nine times, 5 six times, 6 once and 7 once.

Seven different course in the 20 rounds.


----------



## BiMGuy (Oct 25, 2021)

Swango1980 said:



			However, it makes sense to make it fit to the relative difficulty of the course. A scratch golfer, in the UK, plays of scratch on every single course. At my old course, short and easy, they'd need 39 points to play to handicap. Then they'd go to a course like Whistling Straits back tees, and 31 points is playing to handicap. OK if they compare their score to CR, but it is clear most golfers compare their score to par. 31 points at the tough will generally feel deflating compare to 39 at the easy course.
		
Click to expand...

I disagree on your last point. 

I would expect that the vast majority of scratch players have enough understanding of the relative difficulties of the courses they play, and would adjust their expectations accordingly. 

The opposite is usually true for higher handicappers.


----------

