# WHS doesn't work



## Captain_Black. (Sep 28, 2022)

Scratching my head this season looking at the incredible scores coming in.
So I had a look back through the results.
Turns out that with the exception of our Club Champs, which was a Gross comp, nobody with a handicap under 16 has won a comp all season.
Indeed the vast majority of the top 5 finishers in all comps have had handicaps in excess of 20.
Ok, the ground conditions have favoured the shorter hitters, but really!!!
It seems to me, once a handicap exceeds 18 anyone lower than that will struggle to compete.

Apart from the usual suspects who i'm sure are maintaining a high handicap which sadly exist at all clubs, it's quite incredible.
As policing handicaps on an individual basis is impossible, I think the only answer is to split every comp into handicap divisions & split the prize pot accordingly.

Thoughts?


----------



## Neilds (Sep 28, 2022)

Your club maybe isn't managing the handicaps and/or competition entry very well.  It is easy to blame the system but if the club allows people to play the system then who is really at fault?


----------



## Imurg (Sep 28, 2022)

Since I joined my first club in 1994 the majority of comps have been in divisions .
The exception being specific comps where the best nett score overall wins..and they number somewhere between 3 and 5 at my current club
I struggle to comprehend how clubs fail to have divisions for the majority of competitions.
In our monthly medals and stablefords, as a Div1 player, I couldn't care less about the scores in the other divisions as I'm not playing against them.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 28, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Scratching my head this season looking at the incredible scores coming in.
So I had a look back through the results.
Turns out that with the exception of our Club Champs, which was a Gross comp, nobody with a handicap under 16 has won a comp all season.
Indeed the vast majority of the top 5 finishers in all comps have had handicaps in excess of 20.
Ok, the ground conditions have favoured the shorter hitters, but really!!!
It seems to me, once a handicap exceeds 18 anyone lower than that will struggle to compete.

Apart from the usual suspects who i'm sure are maintaining a high handicap which sadly exist at all clubs, it's quite incredible.
As policing handicaps on an individual basis is impossible, *I think the only answer is to split every comp into handicap divisions & split the prize pot accordingly.*

Thoughts?
		
Click to expand...

They already do this at ours. 1-14 is division 1 and above that division 2.


----------



## IanM (Sep 28, 2022)

Our club has always run handicap competitions in divisions.  Even pre whs, it's just sensible.


----------



## Captain_Black. (Sep 28, 2022)

Nope, we don't run divisions except in the Club Champs & the odd few Medals.


----------



## Neilds (Sep 28, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Nope, we don't run divisions except in the Club Champs & the odd few Medals.
		
Click to expand...

Then see post #2


----------



## rulefan (Sep 28, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Scratching my head this season looking at the incredible scores coming in.
So I had a look back through the results.
Turns out that with the exception of our Club Champs, which was a Gross comp, nobody with a handicap under 16 has won a comp all season.
Indeed the vast majority of the top 5 finishers in all comps have had handicaps in excess of 20.
Ok, the ground conditions have favoured the shorter hitters, but really!!!
It seems to me, once a handicap exceeds 18 anyone lower than that will struggle to compete.

Apart from the usual suspects who i'm sure are maintaining a high handicap which sadly exist at all clubs, it's quite incredible.
As policing handicaps on an individual basis is impossible, I think the only answer is to split every comp into handicap divisions & split the prize pot accordingly.

Thoughts?
		
Click to expand...

Possibly WHS is redressing the balance.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 28, 2022)

Very similar issue at my place. Very few winners below 15 or so. 

Divisions would fix the problem but if put to a vote, the high handicappers outnumber the low guys massively so were stuck in a never ending cycle of crap. 

I've stopped entering singles comps - absolutely pointless waste of £3 entry. 

Annoyingly the Sunday roll up couldn't be a better example of how it can work - when everyone has accurate handicaps - as we have seen low and high guys winning with around a 50/50 split. So that's where I play my "competitive" golf these days because Saturday medals are just bandit central.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 28, 2022)

My club is very strong on the competitions front and the membership generally buy into that, and competitions are highly subscribed.  As a result I think WHS must be working fine as even med-high SF handicappers and mid teens cappers fare well in comps.  The last two Stableford comps I entered had winners with 43pts and 41pts.  Now the former is probably out of reach of the low SF and +hcap players, but both are just within reach for med-high SF players, and certainly for many of our mid teens guys.  And depending upon numbers entered we will often have two divisions with winnings split pro-rata.  

One reason is that we have rebuilt our bunkers and they ALL have severe steep sides, and you have to be able to play proper bunker shots or you get stuck in them, and many high handicappers do not seem inclined to work on their bunker play.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 28, 2022)

We have always run Divisions for the prize money.  

What is noticeable these days is that the trophies where it is a stableford compare are being won by some very high handicap players but not so much in handicap stroke play comps.


----------



## Springveldt (Sep 28, 2022)

Just went through a few of our last board comps and sweeps and the winning handicaps and net or points (I just guessed some since we play so many stablefords and looked at their points compared to their posted score so might be 1 shot out here or there)

19 (67), 19 (44), 16 (40), 3 (38), 9 (42), 18 (63), 20 (65), 13 (40), 19 (39), 22 (44), 9 (41), 8 (64), 11 (61), 23 (42), 12 (41), 7 (41)

The lad who won off of 3 is usually a scratch golfer so he must be going through a rough patch. The 9 handicap with 42 points has been as low as 5. Overall it looks like a bias towards higher handicaps but there are more of them.

We have divisions for the board comps but the lowest overall gets their name on the board. Winning your division gives you £40 in credit onto your club card. This was only introduced this season though.


----------



## Newtonuti (Sep 28, 2022)

Springveldt said:



			Just went through a few of our last board comps and sweeps and the winning handicaps and net or points (I just guessed some since we play so many stablefords and looked at their points compared to their posted score so might be 1 shot out here or there)

19 (67), 19 (44), 16 (40), 3 (38), 9 (42), 18 (63), 20 (65), 13 (40), 19 (39), 22 (44), 9 (41), 8 (64), 11 (61), 23 (42), 12 (41), 7 (41)

The lad who won off of 3 is usually a scratch golfer so he must be going through a rough patch. The 9 handicap with 42 points has been as low as 5. Overall it looks like a bias towards higher handicaps but there are more of them.

We have divisions for the board comps but the lowest overall gets their name on the board. Winning your division gives you £40 in credit onto your club card. This was only introduced this season though.
		
Click to expand...

Am I reading this right? A 9HC won with 67 points?


----------



## Springveldt (Sep 28, 2022)

Newtonuti said:



			Am I reading this right? A 9HC won with 67 points?
		
Click to expand...

Net score. They are stableford or net scores in brackets depending on the comp.


----------



## Newtonuti (Sep 28, 2022)

Springveldt said:



			Net score. They are stableford or net scores in brackets depending on the comp.
		
Click to expand...

Ah ok, that makes more sense now


----------



## rulefan (Sep 28, 2022)

Springveldt said:



			Overall it looks like a bias towards higher handicaps but there are more of them.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. If handicaps work properly the number of winners by handicap range over the year will be in proportion to the number of entrants in those ranges.


----------



## Old Colner (Sep 28, 2022)

IanM said:



			Our club has always run handicap competitions in divisions.  Even pre whs, it's just sensible.
		
Click to expand...

How is the overall winner decided, if it’s a board comp who gets the trophy?


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 28, 2022)

I don’t see WHS being the problem in this instance. The fact there is no divisions is the major problem. Even then, yes you will have 2,3,4 Divisional winners but you have to have an overall winner and that won’t change having divisional comps.


----------



## fundy (Sep 28, 2022)

So the handicap system is only supposed to work in divisions then?


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 28, 2022)

It might share out the pot, for those who care about that, but I never consider a category win, a real win. Its half a win. Or a third of a win.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 28, 2022)

fundy said:



			So the handicap system is only supposed to work in divisions then?
		
Click to expand...

No, it works fine without divisions, in clubs that manage things well. Some clubs seem to have a problem though, and I havent heard any good theory why that is so.
Oh, and above 16 hcs should win most competitions anyway. The bias against them of the old system is gone, so now high hcs are winning their fair share. And there are more of them, so a lot more wins going their way as a group, and quite right.


----------



## Captain_Black. (Sep 28, 2022)

Appreciate all the replies, it's certainly something I'm going to tackle with our Chairman & H/C secretary.
With singles comps it's pretty straightforward, but those who have said their clubs already run divisions, is this just for singles comps or do you have divisions for pairs & team comps?
If you do, how is it implemented?
Is it a multiplication of all the team members H/C 's to determine the divisions?

Our board comps have a H/C limit of 21 for men & 28 for Seniors.
If these were run in divisions (they aren't at the moment) who wins the Trophy?


----------



## Val (Sep 28, 2022)

How many players on your comps? If aiw number I'd half understand. 

For the vast majority, 2 years down theine I think would agree the WHS is now settled and working fine


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 28, 2022)

Where it doesn’t ‘work‘ is when it dissuades members from playing in competitions and rollups they played in pre-WHS…especially midweek.  There seems to be a strong feeling amongst a section of membership in my place that rollups are casual and such golf should not have to ‘count’ towards handicap in any way…and that includes simply being on your 20 round record.

Speakimg with our Head Pro today on Sat and Sun medal numbers…he is pretty certain that numbers playing have not been impacted by WHS.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 28, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Where it doesn’t ‘work‘ is when it dissuades members from playing in competitions and rollups they played in pre-WHS…especially midweek.  There seems to be a strong feeling amongst a section of membership in my place that rollups are casual and such golf should not have to ‘count’ towards handicap in any way…and that includes simply being on your 20 round record.

Speakimg with our Head Pro today on Sat and Sun medal numbers…he is pretty certain that numbers playing have not been impacted by WHS.
		
Click to expand...

Is that resistance to not being able to manipulate their handicaps ? 
Was that any different under the old system, or were roll ups non qualifying?


----------



## Backache (Sep 28, 2022)

Takes too long to go through all the results on our app but selecting 5 random competitions none was won by anyone with a handicap over 16 and 3 were won by low(<6hcp) golfers.


----------



## upsidedown (Sep 28, 2022)

Our last 4 Board comps have been won by 0, 5,7 and 11 handicaps . All medals .


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 28, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Your club maybe isn't managing the handicaps and/or competition entry very well.  It is easy to blame the system but if the club allows people to play the system then who is really at fault?
		
Click to expand...

If the system allows people to keep a handicap without continuing to put cards in then how is the club to blame?

I ask because a playing partner fell victim to one of these.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 28, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Is that resistance to not being able to manipulate their handicaps ?
Was that any different under the old system, or were roll ups non qualifying?
		
Click to expand...

They just don’t like the idea of having a ‘card in hand’ when playing what they consider casual and fun golf and golf that is not to be taken seriously.  I don’t think there is much in their thinking around handicap manipulation.

I try arguing that rubbish rounds are very unlikely to ever matter and that (surely) we’d all want good rounds to recognised and reflected in our handicap.  Falls on deaf ears.  Every WHS round matters I am told as it has an impact by being recorded on the players rolling 20.  If it’s there then by it’s very presence it will impact rounds that drop off as the 20 rolls.  So in that respect, yes, some manipulation could be levelled at those thinking that way.

Rollups were non-qualifying.  Some still are but some aren’t.  Our main midweek Rollup is now a qualifying round and the numbers playing in it have dropped from 60-70 to the 39 of last Thursday…typical number post making it a qualifier.


----------



## Neilds (Sep 28, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			If the system allows people to keep a handicap without continuing to put cards in then how is the club to blame?

I ask because a playing partner fell victim to one of these.
		
Click to expand...

The club should/could make a condition of entry into competitions that a player has to have entered a set number of cards or competitions in a year. We have to have entered 3 competitions in a 12 month period to be eligible for board competitions


----------



## Backache (Sep 28, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			They just don’t like the idea of having a ‘card in hand’ when playing what they consider casual and fun golf and golf that is not to be taken seriously.  I don’t think there is much in their thinking around handicap manipulation.
		
Click to expand...

Have to say I have a lot of sympathy with them . I really cannot be bothered with playing provisionals and holing everything out in a fun round of golf, just makes the round longer than necessary. I enjoy comps and am happy to play in them and enjoy causal golf much of which is matchplay. Just have zero interest in registering and putting in and messing around with cards for a quick casual game. Delighted that casual cards are allowed for those who wish but the idea that there is an obligation to do them is an anathema to me.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 28, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Where it doesn’t ‘work‘ is when it dissuades members from playing in competitions and rollups they played in pre-WHS…especially midweek.  There seems to be a strong feeling amongst a section of membership in my place that rollups are casual and such golf should not have to ‘count’ towards handicap in any way…and that includes simply being on your 20 round record.
		
Click to expand...

I think the difference between 'then' and 'now' is that 'then' CONGU permitted Supplementary Scores but 'now' WHS positively encourages General Play scores.


----------



## IanM (Sep 28, 2022)

Old Colner said:



			How is the overall winner decided, if it’s a board comp who gets the trophy?
		
Click to expand...

We don't have oodles of Board Comps, but the big ones are scratch,  and where they are net,  best net gets it.

We also have a minimum number of competitions before you can win anything...


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 28, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I think the difference between 'then' and 'now' is that 'then' CONGU permitted Supplementary Scores but 'now' WHS positively encourages General Play scores.
		
Click to expand...

With the goal of keeping handicaps as accurate as possible. I don't think anyone can object to that fundamental aim.
It might reduce the 'crazy' winning scores some clubs report.


----------



## Old Colner (Sep 28, 2022)

IanM said:



			We don't have oodles of Board Comps, but the big ones are scratch,  and where they are net,  best net gets it.
		
Click to expand...

At ours we have two divisions in the handicap comps but there is also an overall winner, the player with the lowest nett score.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 29, 2022)

Backache said:



			Have to say I have a lot of sympathy with them . I really cannot be bothered with playing provisionals and holing everything out in a fun round of golf, just makes the round longer than necessary. I enjoy comps and am happy to play in them and enjoy causal golf much of which is matchplay. Just have zero interest in registering and putting in and messing around with cards for a quick casual game. Delighted that casual cards are allowed for those who wish but the idea that there is an obligation to do them is an anathema to me.
		
Click to expand...

If it’s a friendly knock, match or suchlike non-competitive round then an NR on a hole isn’t going to matter…and you can have, I believe, up to 8 NRs for it not to matter in respect of a WHS round.  So if you cant be bothered holing out on a hole or going back to play a provisional then just NR it.  You’ll get a score for each NRd hole that’ll sink the card to the bottom of your pond of 20.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 29, 2022)

If the average UK handicap is 17 then you'd think there'd be a lot of winners from that group...


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 29, 2022)

Most of my h/c Scores have been in casual rounds. Thank god this is possible as conditions have favoured short hitters. But, I can see this being easy to manipulate. There really should be a way of logging proper comps and a minimum of x required. I also think anyone in the top three finishers should have their h/c dropped to what they scored. If they can do it once they can do it again.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			If it’s a friendly knock, match or suchlike non-competitive round then an NR on a hole isn’t going to matter…and you can have, I believe, up to 8 NRs for it not to matter in respect of a WHS round.  So if you cant be bothered holing out on a hole or going back to play a provisional then just NR it.  You’ll get a score for each NRd hole that’ll sink the card to the bottom of your pond of 20.
		
Click to expand...

But as the overwhelming majority of my casual rounds are not played according to strict rules of golf. If I was to bother with the faff of submitting cards my handicap would inevitably inflate as they would be NR's. It would mean I'm more likely to win an actual competition as my hcap would be higher.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

Backache said:



			But as the overwhelming majority of my casual rounds are not played according to strict rules of golf. If I was to bother with the faff of submitting cards my handicap would inevitably inflate as they would be NR's. It would mean I'm more likely to win an actual competition as my hcap would be higher.
		
Click to expand...

Is that not the issue, and why some feel their handicaps are now uncompetitive ?

If some of the golfing population is complying with the whs principle, and as you say, their handicaps are going up (reflecting their real golf play, not just a subset of their rounds), but some are not, and so keeping their handicaps lower than whs expects, then they cannot complain about those using whs correctly, winning more .

Further, could this trend be more common among lower handicappers, who tend to be more reluctant to let their headline handicap rise and lose the prestige that gives ? And so further distancing themselves relatively, from high hcs ? And making them even less competitive than even the levelling of the playing field correction, that whs brought after uhc.
If so, no wonder they find they cannot compete as before - but much of it is self inflicted.


----------



## Backache (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Is that not the issue, and why some feel their handicaps are now uncompetitive ?

If some of the golfing population is complying with the whs principle, and as you say, their handicaps are going up (reflecting their real golf play, not just a subset of their rounds), but some are not, and so keeping their handicaps lower than whs expects, then they cannot complain about those using whs correctly, winning more .

Further, could this trend be more common among lower handicappers, who tend to be more reluctant to let their headline handicap rise and lose the prestige that gives ? And so further distancing themselves relatively, from high hcs ? And making them even less competitive than even the levelling of the playing field correction, that whs brought after uhc.
If so, no wonder they find they cannot compete as before - but much of it is self inflicted.
		
Click to expand...

People play golf in different ways but if your intention at the start of a round is not to play strictly according to the rules of golf the round should not count for WHS.
I virtually never take provisionals in casual golf. I may not putt out. If there are slow players on the course I may skip a hole. If invited to play through I may pick up. Counting this rather large subset of rounds would make a mockery of any handicap system and would diverge significantly from the guidance.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

Backache said:



			People play golf in different ways but if your intention at the start of a round is not to play strictly according to the rules of golf the round should not count for WHS.
I virtually never take provisionals in casual golf. I may not putt out. If there are slow players on the course I may skip a hole. If invited to play through I may pick up. Counting this rather large subset of rounds would make a mockery of any handicap system and would diverge significantly from the guidance.
		
Click to expand...

I see your point. And would tend towards the same view, but asking myself if its not just an old uhc habit, that is a not in the whs philosophy.

If whs is encouraging doing just that, submitting all rounds, and some people are -perfectly legitimately - doing so, yet others arent, doesnt that lead to two levels of handicaps ?


----------



## Maninblack4612 (Sep 29, 2022)

Another factor, which existed prior to WHS, is that every club will have a constant stream of rapidly improving players where the handicap system won't fully reflect the rate of improvement in their game. It easier for a 28 handicapper to improve by 10 strokes than someone off single figures or even, say, 16 or 17. The only sensible option is to run competitions in divisions & restrict board competitions to 20 or 24.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Is that not the issue, and why some feel their handicaps are now uncompetitive ?

If some of the golfing population is complying with the whs principle, and as you say, their handicaps are going up (reflecting their real golf play, not just a subset of their rounds), but some are not, and so keeping their handicaps lower than whs expects, then they cannot complain about those using whs correctly, winning more .

Further, could this trend be more common among lower handicappers, who tend to be more reluctant to let their headline handicap rise and lose the prestige that gives ? And so further distancing themselves relatively, from high hcs ? And making them even less competitive than even the levelling of the playing field correction, that whs brought after uhc.
If so, no wonder they find they cannot compete as before - but much of it is self inflicted.
		
Click to expand...

My ego liked that I was an 8 under the old system.  But that was my stretch and I only played to it or better maybe 2 in 10.  Most of the time I play within buffer or over.  My current CH is 9 and I am working to get it to 8, but that is taking effort and for me it means my golf is actually better than it was.  When I achieve that goal of 8 I suspect my ‘stretch’ will be closer to 6.  I believe my new 8 will be much more competitive than my old 8…but that’s just down to me choosing to work on my game.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

Maninblack4612 said:



			Another factor, which existed prior to WHS, is that every club will have a constant stream of rapidly improving players where the handicap system won't fully reflect the rate of improvement in their game. It easier for a 28 handicapper to improve by 10 strokes than someone off single figures or even, say, 16 or 17. The only sensible option is to run competitions in divisions & restrict board competitions to 20 or 24.
		
Click to expand...

That's true, but as it existed before, it wouldn't explain the reports, or perceptions, that high scores are rampant in some clubs and lower hcs can no longer compete to their satisfaction, or that 'WHS isn't working'.


----------



## Junior (Sep 29, 2022)

I'm slowly being converted.  Indeed, ive won 2 board comps this year largely thanks to it   I still think PCC needs addressing, and, the system needs to manage what was the old "CAT 1" handicaps better.   

Lots of scratch events are being balloted out at  lower levels, previously 2 / 3 may have got you in now it's plus 2.  Due to vanity handicaps  there were record numbers entering open qualifying and the R&A had to put on an extra event at Hollinwell.  I was chatting to a pro at a club near me and he said the guys he was paired with both NR'd and wouldn't have broke 95.  He had a 5 and a half hour round at Fairhaven and spent most of his round looking for their balls in the thick stuff. Lots in all the qualifiers didn't break 85.


----------



## IanM (Sep 29, 2022)

WHS works in maths and therefore works as well as any maths of its type.

There have always been handicap cheats.  This has made it easier, should you be so inclined.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 29, 2022)

If WHS is working where are all these really silly scores coming from?
Most would play to their handicap if they were correct.
A good day was a couple under par under the old system ,when a low guy won it was close by one or two shots, I never saw one shoot sub 60  Net or 50+ points.
Under WHS the scores winning are just laughable so something is wrong.
It hasn’t redressed the advantage it’s thrown the bath water out!


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 29, 2022)

Junior said:



			I'm slowly being converted.  Indeed, ive won 2 board comps this year largely thanks to it   I still think PCC needs addressing, and, the system needs to manage what was the old "CAT 1" handicaps better.  

Lots of scratch events are being balloted out at  lower levels, previously 2 / 3 may have got you in now it's plus 2.  Due to vanity handicaps  there were record numbers entering open qualifying and the R&A had to put on an extra event at Hollinwell.  I was chatting to a pro at a club near me and he said the guys he was paired with both NR'd and wouldn't have broke 95.  He had a 5 and a half hour round at Fairhaven and spent most of his round looking for their balls in the thick stuff. Lots in all the qualifiers didn't break 85.
		
Click to expand...

I have never understood why anyone would want a low cap that they can’t play to.
It just puts guys who work on their game a lot out of these comps.
Really selfish.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			If WHS is working where are all these really silly scores coming from?
		
Click to expand...

The scores are only silly from a UHS perspective. They are not silly from a WHS perspective - but only appear silly to those who are not fully conforming to the intent of WHS, but still operating in a UHS mode of only considering competition scores as meriting inclusion in their handicap profile and eschewing putting in non competition cards.


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 29, 2022)

When I’m king no adult will be allowed more than one shot per hole in any kind of competition.


----------



## Maninblack4612 (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			The scores are only silly from a UHS perspective. They are not silly from a WHS perspective - but only appear silly to those who are not fully conforming to the intent of WHS, but still operating in a UHS mode of only considering competition scores as meriting inclusion in their handicap profile and eschewing putting in non competition cards.
		
Click to expand...

What's to say that competition only scores are not representative of the players normal play? We play matchplay on non competition days & our scores don't differ from the ones we typically return in competition. We don't avoid competitions, just prefer to play 4BBB when there are four of us because medal or strokeplay is too slow in a fourball.


----------



## Imurg (Sep 29, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			When I’m king no adult will be allowed more than one shot per hole in any kind of competition.
		
Click to expand...

Fragger gets 2 on a par 3 that I don't get any on...I'll vote for ya!


----------



## IanM (Sep 29, 2022)

The massive variance of when and how many cards folk lodge for handicap is a huge over sight by the authorities. 

In their defence, it would be nearly impossible to get the balance right too.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

In their defence too, they are urging - as many as possible / the more the better. But are meeting resistance.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			In their defence too, they are urging - as many as possible / the more the better. But are meeting resistance.
		
Click to expand...

I don't understand how this would help though. If I put every round in for handicap, my handicap would almost certainly be higher than it is. If a lot of people are in that same boat then how is more cards going to help the situation?


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

You are equally saying that your handicap is lower than WHS is designed to have it. So you are disadvantaging yourself in hc competition (or flattering yourself with your HI as it is 😉). I think it was bachache made the same observation, that his handicap would rise by submitting more rounds.
I think the problem arises where people take different attitudes to what they think the system should be. And so consistency is lost. Rather than playing it as written, whether agreeing or not with its basis, or disagreeing with what was a different basis in the past. A lot of clever people did a lot of statistics to come up with the WHS I would guess. Best to at least play it as written.


----------



## IanM (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			In their defence too, they are urging - as many as possible / the more the better. But are meeting resistance.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely.    But, 

If it wasn't for this forum, I wouldn't know this was being talked about.

I've never had anything from my club or Wales Golf "encouraging more general play cards."

I am happy to keep a clear line between social golf and comps, as are many golfers.  Lots of reasons for this and it'll take some shifting. 

Even our Seniors section is actively keeping Mondays for social and Wednesdays for qualifiers!


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

Has anyone knowledge of the view on WHS outside our CONGUland and the comparisons and legacy conditions that invites.
Or is the rest of the world happy with it?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			The scores are only silly from a UHS perspective. They are not silly from a WHS perspective - but only appear silly to those who are not fully conforming to the intent of WHS, but still operating in a UHS mode of only considering competition scores as meriting inclusion in their handicap profile and eschewing putting in non competition cards.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry sub 60 and 50+ point are a silly score whatever system your using.!


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

From England Golf's original explanatory faqs before WHS came in :

*Q: Do I have to record all scores? *
A: Players should submit all singles competition scores and have the ability to pre-register and submit scores from social games played in accordance with the rules of golf. Accuracy of a player’s Handicap Index will be improved the greater the number of scorecards submitted.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			You are equally saying that your handicap is lower than WHS is designed to have it. *So you are disadvantaging yourself in hc competition (or flattering yourself with your HI as it is 😉).* I think it was bachache made the same observation, that his handicap would rise by submitting more rounds.
I think the problem arises where people take different attitudes to what they think the system should be. And so consistency is lost. Rather than playing it as written, whether agreeing or not with its basis, or disagreeing with what was a different basis in the past. A lot of clever people did a lot of statistics to come up with the WHS I would guess. Best to at least play it as written.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not at all. I'm saying I don't play every round like it actually matters, nor would I want to. If I put every card in, I'd probably be one of the guys everyone else moans about for winning comps with 44 points off of 17 or something! I have put some non-comp cards in, but only when I feel like taking it seriously. Sometimes you just want to hack it round and not care. Once we get into winter I don't enter comps or submit any cards at all either, otherwise I'd just go up about 3 shots in time to clean up at the start of next summer - I don't really want to do it that way.


----------



## IanM (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			From England Golf's original explanatory faqs before WHS came in :

*Q: Do I have to record all scores? *
A: Players should submit all singles competition scores and have the ability to pre-register and submit scores from social games played in accordance with the rules of golf. Accuracy of a player’s Handicap Index will be improved the greater the number of scorecards submitted.
		
Click to expand...

Change and Comms Bloke says, "Factual about process and contains no clear instruction about behaviour change!"


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 29, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			I'm not at all. I'm saying I don't play every round like it actually matters, nor would I want to. If I put every card in, I'd probably be one of the guys everyone else moans about for winning comps with 44 points off of 17 or something! I have put some non-comp cards in, but only when I feel like taking it seriously. Sometimes you just want to hack it round and not care. Once we get into winter I don't enter comps or submit any cards at all either, otherwise I'd just go up about 3 shots in time to clean up at the start of next summer - I don't really want to do it that way.
		
Click to expand...

I'm basically the same mate - but ill let mine come up over winter - no way I play to 12 consistently when things get boggy!


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 29, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			I'm basically the same mate - but ill let mine come up over winter - no way I play to 12 consistently when things get boggy!
		
Click to expand...

No, but if I'm also not entering comps then it doesn't really matter what the handicap is.  Last winter I didn't put a card in from 4th Sept until 19th March. I am playing a comp this Saturday I think, if it's too wet after that that'll be it again probably.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 29, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			No, but if I'm also not entering comps then it doesn't really matter what the handicap is.  Last winter I didn't put a card in from 4th Sept until 19th March. I am playing a comp this Saturday I think, if it's too wet after that that'll be it again probably.
		
Click to expand...

My mates would still gladly take the shots off me in matchplay so the only solution is submitting cards!


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 29, 2022)

One of the points about handicapping in general (even pre WHS)  is that you should only record an NR on the holes where you actually have one and in a general play card round that is the point where you would score zero points on a hole in a stableford comp with 100% allowance.  The system will then give a nett double bogey for any such hole.


----------



## rulefan (Sep 29, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			When I’m king no adult will be allowed more than one shot per hole in any kind of competition.
		
Click to expand...

And that will double the annual subs of the players that remain.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 29, 2022)

Following a question about PCC from a member I was checking how many players submitted General play cards on a couple of weekdays this month and both days had 40-50 players doing so.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 29, 2022)

fundy said:



			So the handicap system is only supposed to work in divisions then?
		
Click to expand...


  We have always had divisions and there has always been (even pre WHS)  a big difference between the winning scores in Div 3 compared to Div 1 in a stableford comp. So it could be argued that handicaps do not truly level up the field unless a players handicap is totally reflective of their ability which is easier to achieve under the WHS than it was under the UHC. 
However as has already been said you will find many more improving golfers in the higher handicap divisions then in Div 1.


----------



## IanM (Sep 29, 2022)

Our Phil is 56.  Has played for 30 years.  Handicap was 16 for years  under the old system.    He won the odd comp,  had the odd disaster.   Typical 16 Handicapper,  could birdie every hole on the course, or could never see his drive again. 

Well his course handicap is now 23.   Hasnt done much in comps but has folk refusing to play him in Seniors Matches!  He won one match on 10th green.   His opponent got straight in the car after the walk back!  There have been several 8&7s too.   I'm certain he's trying his best in singles comps too.

That's golf.   Now!


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 29, 2022)

Backache said:



			Have to say I have a lot of sympathy with them . I really cannot be bothered with playing provisionals and holing everything out in a fun round of golf, just makes the round longer than necessary. I enjoy comps and am happy to play in them and enjoy causal golf much of which is matchplay. Just have zero interest in registering and putting in and messing around with cards for a quick casual game. Delighted that casual cards are allowed for those who wish but the idea that there is an obligation to do them is an anathema to me.
		
Click to expand...

Excellently put.  I play golf for fun. I also "try things"   except in competitions.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 29, 2022)

IanM said:



			Our Phil is 56.  Has played for 30 years.  Handicap was 16 for years  under the old system.    He won the odd comp,  had the odd disaster.   Typical 16 Handicapper,  could birdie every hole on the course, or could never see his drive again.

Well his course handicap is now 23.   Hasnt done much in comps but has folk refusing to play him in Seniors Matches!  He won one match on 10th green.   His opponent got straight in the car after the walk back!  There have been several 8&7s too.   I'm certain he's trying his best in singles comps too.

That's golf.   Now!

Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean. I play in the same way.


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 29, 2022)

Its crap.  It inflates your handicap so quickly that as soon as form turns your on a winning position instantly.  The fact divisions are needed to address the inequalities should be evidence enough.  There are hc secs up and down the country trying to process hundreds of cards a week, with more encouraged, and a pcc that means difficult conditions are ignored.  Its no wonder many have given up.  Or are manually over riding the system. 

A system so great that it needs teams of volunteers to over ride it every week.

Slow hand clap.

Lets take the handicap system thats used in a country known for its lack of comps and general disregard for handicap accuracy, and apply it to the country with the most comps and most stringently enforced handicapping system.  What could possibly go wrong!


----------



## IanM (Sep 29, 2022)

Your last paragraph is hard to argue with.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 29, 2022)

sweaty sock said:



			Its crap.  It inflates your handicap so quickly that as soon as form turns your on a winning position instantly.  The fact divisions are needed to address the inequalities should be evidence enough.  There are hc secs up and down the country trying to process hundreds of cards a week, with more encouraged, and a pcc that means difficult conditions are ignored.  Its no wonder many have given up.  Or are manually over riding the system.

A system so great that it needs teams of volunteers to over ride it every week.

Slow hand clap.

Lets take the handicap system thats used in a country known for its lack of comps and general disregard for handicap accuracy, and apply it to the country with the most comps and most stringently enforced handicapping system.  What could possibly go wrong!
		
Click to expand...

  The question I would ask is - Why are secretaries processing hundreds of cards a week? There are automatic processes and the advice from County is to only check a random few cards.

The system cannot inflate handicaps quickly as the hard and soft caps slow it down and there is a limit to increases in a calendar year.


----------



## Steve Wilkes (Sep 29, 2022)

Everyone who doesn't like the WHS moans about what's wrong with it, but ignoring WHS what does everyone want from a handicap system and how do you realistically get to that point.


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 29, 2022)

Steve Wilkes said:



			Everyone who doesn't like the WHS moans about what's wrong with it, but ignoring WHS what does everyone want from a handicap system and how do you realistically get to that point.
		
Click to expand...

They just want to go back to how things were. Some people just don’t like change.


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 29, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			The question I would ask is - Why are secretaries processing hundreds of cards a week? There are automatic processes and the advice from County is to only check a random few cards.

The system cannot inflate handicaps quickly as the hard and soft caps slow it down and there is a limit to increases in a calendar year.
		
Click to expand...

It's easier to jump on the bandwagon and ride the hysteria.

More than WHS, I would think the culprit to some of the grievances was the removal of the 28hc cap.

WHS seems to be working perfectly from what I can see.


----------



## nickjdavis (Sep 29, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			More than WHS, I would think the culprit to some of the grievances was the removal of the 28hc cap.
		
Click to expand...

Which, as we pretty much all know, even if it is often conveniently forgotten, happened well before WHS was introduced.


----------



## AussieKB (Sep 30, 2022)

sweaty sock said:



			Its crap.  It inflates your handicap so quickly that as soon as form turns your on a winning position instantly.  The fact divisions are needed to address the inequalities should be evidence enough.  There are hc secs up and down the country trying to process hundreds of cards a week, with more encouraged, and a pcc that means difficult conditions are ignored.  Its no wonder many have given up.  Or are manually over riding the system.

A system so great that it needs teams of volunteers to over ride it every week.

Slow hand clap.

Lets take the handicap system thats used in a country known for its lack of comps and general disregard for handicap accuracy, and apply it to the country with the most comps and most stringently enforced handicapping system.  What could possibly go wrong!
		
Click to expand...

In OZ we play comps all year round due to our weather (lucky us), so you can imagine how players can change their handicaps very quickly, for myself over the next 9 days I am playing 7 comps.


----------



## SteveJay (Sep 30, 2022)

I can see the pros and cons from both side of the argument. I like the system and it suits me, but I am lucky in that I play 3 times a week, sometimes more in Summer. I play enough qualifying competitions to have plenty of cards going in, but can still play social golf and try new things without fear that my handicap will go up. For this that play once a week I can see their frustrations.

I may be in the minority in that I am trying hard to get my handicap down, and therefore improve my golf. I accept that the system means that I will not feature on the leaderboard in most competitions as invariably someone in the higher handicap pool of players will have a good round and score around 40 points.

I just try to focus on playing better than my handicap, knowing that should probably mean a cut. As a result I often take note of my gross score during a round even when we are playing stableford.

I know many will want to be competitive in competitions. I still do, and hope that as i improve consistency I will have opportunities when it all comes together.
Having come down from 15 to 11.4 this year i am happy that WHS is working for me.


----------



## Blob Jacket (Sep 30, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			I'm not at all. I'm saying I don't play every round like it actually matters, nor would I want to. If I put every card in, I'd probably be one of the guys everyone else moans about for winning comps with 44 points off of 17 or something! I have put some non-comp cards in, but only when I feel like taking it seriously. Sometimes you just want to hack it round and not care. Once we get into winter I don't enter comps or submit any cards at all either, otherwise I'd just go up about 3 shots in time to clean up at the start of next summer - I don't really want to do it that way.
		
Click to expand...

This is a good post, especially the last point.

For me, EG seem obsessed with people submitting as many rounds as possible that they forget some people already play 25+ qualifiers a year and, even with a best 8 average and an already accurate handicap, can fluctuate massively during a season depending on form. Why would anybody in this position want - or need - to add to that with supplementary scores?

The system does work for me, as did CONGU, but I use them the same - loads of non-winter qualifying scores. The main difference between the two seems to be there was no quick reward for a bad spell or season with CONGU (4 strokes is the biggest I've seen with WHS) while you found your form again.


----------



## Backache (Sep 30, 2022)

SteveJay said:



			I may be in the minority in that I am trying hard to get my handicap down, and therefore improve my golf. I accept that the system means that I will not feature on the leaderboard in most competitions as invariably someone in the higher handicap pool of players will have a good round and score around 40 points.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect your actually in the majority and probably the vast majority.
Very good scores relative to handicap only appear to be a problem in some clubs 
A lot of people are reporting no change and even within those clubs the majority of scores appear reasonable, so the majority seem to have reasonable handicaps.


----------



## sweaty sock (Sep 30, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			The question I would ask is - Why are secretaries processing hundreds of cards a week? There are automatic processes and the advice from County is to only check a random few cards.

The system cannot inflate handicaps quickly as the hard and soft caps slow it down and there is a limit to increases in a calendar year.
		
Click to expand...

Lets say the average player plays a comp every weekend, 0.1 lift every week is 2.6 shots in a 6 month season.  Thats just reaching the soft cap in a year.  You can reach the soft cap in 2 weeks now, the hard cap would have taken you 18 months to reach in CONGU.  So its not exactly controlling it is it...


----------



## Backsticks (Sep 30, 2022)

...that is exactly controlling it - reflecting current playing level. A moving average is a very good principal. 8 from 20 skews it dramatically towards your better scores.
Its UHS that was too slow to react in the upwards direction, without manual intervention, which cluba were slow to do.


----------



## IanM (Sep 30, 2022)

As long as some folk put in all their cards for handicap, and some only put in formal comps, there will be a discrepancy.   Even then, some folk play once a month, and some 5 times a week! 

Do the authorities (whoever they are) actually believe that *every *time you play, it should count for handicap? Maybe the new system depends on it.  But, that is not enforceable (or desirable)

*Fundamentally the old and new handicaps are a different measure*.   Until players understand this, we'll have these conversations.  Nothing I've seen from anywhere has addressed this.  (I know an excellent change and comms consultancy that could sort this out...   )

Once that is sorted we can get on to "_why make it easier to cheat?"_


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 30, 2022)

IanM said:



			As long as some folk put in all their cards for handicap, and some only put in formal comps, there will be a discrepancy.   Even then, some folk play once a month, and some 5 times a week!

Do the authorities (whoever they are) actually believe that *every *time you play, it should count for handicap? Maybe the new system depends on it.  But, that is not enforceable (or desirable)

*Fundamentally the old and new handicaps are a different measure*.   Until players understand this, we'll have these conversations.  Nothing I've seen from anywhere has addressed this.  (I know an excellent change and comms consultancy that could sort this out...   )

Once that is sorted we can get on to "_why make it easier to cheat?"_

Click to expand...

On your last sentence how about the fact I learned yesterday that some, if not many, players do not always hole out when playing with their mates.  They don‘t record an NR for the hole but feel it OK, cos that’s what they and their mates do, to count it as a holed putt.  And in goes the card.

I note that this could explain the comment recently made to me in a comp by one fella I‘d never played with before - after he missed a few tiddlers - that he finds these little 18” putts tricky as he and his mates rarely play medal and when playing Stableford tend to always give gimmies for them. OK he rarely plays medal but he has to then have played and submitted Stableford cards for WHS. I struggled to understand how he could submit Stableford cards for WHS without ever holing short putts, even just for 1 pt you have to hole the putt.  The clouds parted a little yesterday.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 30, 2022)

sweaty sock said:



			Lets say the average player plays a comp every weekend, 0.1 lift every week is 2.6 shots in a 6 month season.  Thats just reaching the soft cap in a year.  You can reach the soft cap in 2 weeks now, the hard cap would have taken you 18 months to reach in CONGU.  So its not exactly controlling it is it...
		
Click to expand...


There was no hard cap under the UHS.

However looking at the position of the declining golfer and I will use my self as an example

I was once a 5 handicap golfer but and age and injury made me get worse.

So say I need an uplift of 3 shots to be at the correct handicap for my ability playing I would have needed to play in 30 comps or submit supp scores with a 0.1 increase applied each time. Where I play we only have a comp once a month on a Saturday and once a week on a Thursday they will not all be qualifiers and some are team comps (plus for me  Seniors single comps I reckoned on having approx 20 qualifying scores in during a year. So at the end of year one I had only gone up 2 shots and not the 3 I needed.

So the following year I *might* a further increase of 2-3 shots and the same thing happens therefore under the  UHS I never got to the correct handicap level.

One of the things I have liked with the WHS is that I have relatively quickly got to my correct handicap level currently 10.2 H.I. but have gone as high as 12

Personally I do not a see an increase of 3 shots (soft cap start point) as a massive increase and if a player wanted to do something similar it was just as easy via the Supplementary Score system if the player wanted to put in a card every time they played. 

 Being on the Handicap committee I have seen players try it but it is a relatively small number, so small it is not worth changing a whole system for.


----------



## Neilds (Sep 30, 2022)

When it comes to threads about high handicaps winning every competition with nett 56s or 56 points stableford, or 40+ handcaippers winning every knockout, I put them in the same bracket as those that moan about constant 6 hour rounds or constantly driving 320 yards on every hole.  It possibly/probably does happen but only relatively few times throughout the year.  Unfortunately, golfers can be a bit like fishermen and tend to exaggerate a bit and also spend a bit too much time listening to tales in the bar without much evidence to back up the claims.  If they hear 3 people mention a handicap problem they automatically think it is 3 separate cases, but could be the same golfer they are talking about.


----------



## nickjdavis (Sep 30, 2022)

Neilds said:



			When it comes to threads about high handicaps winning every competition with nett 56s or 56 points stableford, or 40+ handcaippers winning every knockout, I put them in the same bracket as those that moan about constant 6 hour rounds or constantly driving 320 yards on every hole.  It possibly/probably does happen but only relatively few times throughout the year.  Unfortunately, golfers can be a bit like fishermen and tend to exaggerate a bit and also spend a bit too much time listening to tales in the bar without much evidence to back up the claims.  If they hear 3 people mention a handicap problem they automatically think it is 3 separate cases, but could be the same golfer they are talking about.
		
Click to expand...

Have been looking at some old comp results pre/post WHS. Covid in 2020 made things a little difficult to compare but across 8 or 9 common stableford comps that have been played each year, in 2019 there were 4 scores in excess of 42 points, in 2020 there were 6 such scores. Since the introduction of the WHS there has not been a single stableford comp where a score in excess of 42 points has been recorded.

My investigation has thrown up data that indicates to me that WHS has neither increased players handicaps nor resulted in huge increase in scores, but has probably allowed 20+ handicappers to be a little bit more competitive than they previously were. Obviously that is at my own club, but if the WHS is inherently faulty I'd expect to see some sort of replication of the issues that seem to be commonly moaned about...seemingly this is not the case.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 30, 2022)

Round my place yellow tees tend to generate the highest Stableford points. The current highest Stableford score off yellows by a gent in at least the last four years is 46, and that was done precisely one year ago by a 19 handicapper - and perhaps not surprisingly he is now 16. 

Stableford comps whites or yellows tend to be won by scores in the 41-43 points range, no different from pre-WHS.


----------



## chellie (Sep 30, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			On your last sentence how about the fact I learned yesterday that some, if not many, players do not always hole out when playing with their mates.  They don‘t record an NR for the hole but feel it OK, cos that’s what they and their mates do, to count it as a holed putt.  And in goes the card.

I note that this could explain the comment recently made to me in a comp by one fella I‘d never played with before - after he missed a few tiddlers - that he finds these little 18” putts tricky as he and his mates rarely play medal and when playing Stableford tend to always give gimmies for them. OK he rarely plays medal but he has to then have played and submitted Stableford cards for WHS. I struggled to understand how he could submit Stableford cards for WHS without ever holing short putts, even just for 1 pt you have to hole the putt.  The clouds parted a little yesterday.
		
Click to expand...

Have you reported it to your handicap committee?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 30, 2022)

chellie said:



			Have you reported it to your handicap committee?
		
Click to expand...

I will raise it as a suspicion.  I’m thinking it’s _only _of the shortest gimme length, but that’s irrelevant.  I have no evidence of this myself but hearsay…though I trust my source. Also it may be very rare indeed that it happens, and of course if it happens now it may also have happened before.

That said, if what was previously a casual/friendly comp is now a WHS qualifier, I can imagine some participants continuing as if it was as before with gimmes, or knocking away a ball if not going to score and having it scored as if the ball was tapped in rather than as a NR for the hole.

I would not put up with it, and if any in a group I was playing in tried it on I’d refuse to record the score and score as an NR, and if not scoring the player myself I’d say that I’d have to report it if it was so recorded.


----------



## KenL (Sep 30, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			They already do this at ours. 1-14 is division 1 and above that division 2.
		
Click to expand...

But, is the medal/trophy not given to the best overall net score?


----------



## backwoodsman (Sep 30, 2022)

Just had a look at winning scores in our 'singles' comps since April - roughly an even split between medal and stableford. But I've converted medal scores into points but also put them as a 'To Par' equivalent. Don't know what others think but the distribution doesn't look too bad to me. (Ps. Sorry, can't get the headers to line up with the columns).

Points    To Par (nett)    Count
37    -1    6
38    -2    1
39    -3    4
40    -4    2
41    -5    5
42    -6    6
43    -7    2
44    -8    2
46    -10    1


----------



## bobmac (Oct 1, 2022)

Neilds said:



			When it comes to threads about high handicaps winning *every competition* with nett 56s or 56 points stableford, or 40+ handcaippers winning *every knockout*, I put them in the same bracket as those that moan about constant 6 hour rounds or constantly driving 320 yards on every hole.  It possibly/probably does happen but only relatively few times throughout the year.  Unfortunately, golfers can be a bit like fishermen and *tend to exaggerate a bit* and also spend a bit too much time listening to tales in the bar without much evidence to back up the claims.  If they hear 3 people mention a handicap problem they automatically think it is 3 separate cases, but could be the same golfer they are talking about.
		
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I don't think anyone claims that every competition or every knockout is won by high handicappers.


----------



## Neilds (Oct 1, 2022)

bobmac said:



			I could be wrong but I don't think anyone claims that every competition or every knockout is won by high handicappers.
		
Click to expand...

It certainly feels that way reading some of the threads on here 🤣


----------



## Val (Oct 1, 2022)

sweaty sock said:



			Its crap.  It inflates your handicap so quickly that as soon as form turns your on a winning position instantly.  The fact divisions are needed to address the inequalities should be evidence enough.  There are hc secs up and down the country trying to process hundreds of cards a week, with more encouraged, and a pcc that means difficult conditions are ignored.  Its no wonder many have given up.  Or are manually over riding the system.

A system so great that it needs teams of volunteers to over ride it every week.

Slow hand clap.

Lets take the handicap system thats used in a country known for its lack of comps and general disregard for handicap accuracy, and apply it to the country with the most comps and most stringently enforced handicapping system.  What could possibly go wrong!
		
Click to expand...

Divisions were in place with the congu system so unsure why you feel its a whs problem. It also doesn't inflate your handicap quickly unless you submit a lot of cards in a short space of time and your best 7 are those in rounds 14 through 20. 

The congu system was ok and for me a mix of both systems should have been the answer. The idea of your handicap being affected by form rather than ability was always the big benefit of the change, and rightly so IMO


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 3, 2022)

My mate who is a bandit off 29, had a poor start on Saturday with a couple of early blobs, recovered with a strong back nine to finish on 35 points and came 5th in the competition. Did really well I thought. His handicap went up to 29.7 because he lost a decent round at the other end. I still can't get used to the idea that you can have a good round and still go up. It makes the idea of striving for a particular handicap target a waste of time really. In the old system it used to mean something if you achieved say, single figures for example, but if you do in this system you know that in 3 weeks you could just be right back where you started. It's just a number that constantly changes rather than something you earn and hold onto.


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			It's just a number that constantly changes rather than something you earn and hold onto.
		
Click to expand...

Some would view that as being a system that is more responsive to changes in a players form.


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 3, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			Some would view that as being a system that is more responsive to changes in a players form.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't really think that's a good thing. If someone has six weeks of bad form for whatever reason it doesn't mean they're no longer capable of a good round does it? I do think overall the system is too quick to give people more shots.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah, I don't really think that's a good thing. If someone has six weeks of bad form for whatever reason it doesn't mean they're no longer capable of a good round does it? I do think overall the system is too quick to give people more shots.
		
Click to expand...

What do you allow for though? The one in 4 months good round or your everyday play? It used to be the former, now it is the latter. It's more representative of what you actually play to, not what you might play to.


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 3, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			What do you allow for though? The one in 4 months good round or your everyday play? It used to be the former, now it is the latter. It's more representative of what you actually play to, not what you might play to.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure the old system was perfect either, but this is too far the opposite way. Ideally would want a happy medium between the two.  But hey they're not going to change it again so it is what it is now.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah, I'm not sure the old system was perfect either, but this is too far the opposite way. Ideally would want a happy medium between the two.  But hey they're not going to change it again so it is what it is now.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, the other system was way too slow to react, perhaps this is too quick. Maybe best 10 out of 20 spreads it better? Whatever they do, someone wont be happy


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			My mate who is a bandit off 29, had a poor start on Saturday with a couple of early blobs, recovered with a strong back nine to finish on 35 points and came 5th in the competition. Did really well I thought. His handicap went up to 29.7 because he lost a decent round at the other end. I still can't get used to the idea that you can have a good round and still go up. It makes the idea of striving for a particular handicap target a waste of time really. In the old system it used to mean something if you achieved say, single figures for example, but if you do in this system you know that in 3 weeks you could just be right back where you started. It's just a number that constantly changes rather than something you earn and hold onto.
		
Click to expand...

I do feel this one is the happy medium.  Your last sentence is the flaw in the old system in a nutshell. ie, that it was a badge of honour, and that you could hold it. Meaning it could be incorrect but you live in the glow of it nonetheless. That cant be a good system for fair handicapped competition golf.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2022)

In next 7 rounds (so quite near time period) I have 4 that count to my handicap.  I know that if I play to roughly the average of these four rounds each time one is about to drop from my 20 then my handicap index will remain pretty much as it is.  If I can’t, then it will go up…and that’s the right thing to happen as these rounds will be demonstrated by my own golf to be unrepresentative of my current form.

And I get that WHS is about form and not stretch ability, and that for me is how it should be.  I know that I can occasionally play maybe 3 or 4 shots under my current CH of 9 - that’s for me to know - I don’t need a handicap that pretends to myself and others that I am better than I actually am.


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 3, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			I do feel this one is the happy medium.  Your last sentence is the flaw in the old system in a nutshell. ie, that it was a badge of honour, and that you could hold it. Meaning it could be incorrect but you live in the glow of it nonetheless. That cant be a good system for fair handicapped competition golf.
		
Click to expand...

I definitely don't think you should keep a handicap forever if you're not able to play to it anymore. But at the moment I feel like you can earn a particular handicap and just have it wiped off within a few weeks which doesn't seem right either.


----------



## Old Colner (Oct 3, 2022)

I do feel some compensation should be given to the conditions, playing Saturday in the wind & rail is a comparable round to one in the middle of July with perfect conditions, if that is what PCC is supposed to do, it has kicked in once in two years at ours, with reflection maybe that is what the eight from twenty gives you.


----------



## Slab (Oct 3, 2022)

I think its pretty much doing what its supposed to do…whether that’s what any given individual wants from ‘their’ handicap system is another matter


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Yeah, I don't really think that's a good thing. If someone has six weeks of bad form for whatever reason it doesn't mean they're no longer capable of a good round does it? I do think overall the system is too quick to give people more shots.
		
Click to expand...

I guess it works differently for different people....folks who play maybe only a couple of competitions a month and don't submit any general play cards wont be susceptible to such variance. Those who are playing twice a week and submitting all cards will.

...and before folks pipe up saying that players should submit every card....I simply do not believe that the majority of golfers who play regular competition golf think or operate this way.

Looking at the stats from my club there is an obvious inverse correlation between players who submit scores from comps and those who submit sores from general play....the golfers who are responsible for the 10% fewest competition entries have submitted 68% of all general play scores. The golfers who have submitted the fewest 10% of GP rounds are responsible for 75% of the competition scores. It would not surprise me in the slightest, if this pattern was repeated at a significant majority of clubs across the country.


----------



## sweaty sock (Oct 3, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			In next 7 rounds (so quite near time period) I have 4 that count to my handicap.  I know that if I play to roughly the average of these four rounds each time one is about to drop from my 20 then my handicap index will remain pretty much as it is.  If I can’t, then it will go up…and that’s the right thing to happen as these rounds will be demonstrated by my own golf to be unrepresentative of my current form.

And I get that WHS is about form and not stretch ability, and that for me is how it should be.  I know that I can occasionally play maybe 3 or 4 shots under my current CH of 9 - that’s for me to know - I don’t need a handicap that pretends to myself and others that I am better than I actually am.
		
Click to expand...

As we are all painfully aware, ability in golf is slow to change, form changes from day to day.  Seems clear ability is no longer tracked and form is all that counts... for me thats worse for lots of reasons.  The congu system had easy ways to adjust if ability was suddenly affected....


----------



## HampshireHog (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			I definitely don't think you should keep a handicap forever if you're not able to play to it anymore. But at the moment I feel like you can earn a particular handicap and just have it wiped off within a few weeks which doesn't seem right either.
		
Click to expand...

Not strictly true due to HI cap.  I agree with sentiment though, personally I wouldn’t allow general play cards to be submitted if you have another card submitted in the previous 7 days.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2022)

sweaty sock said:



			As we are all painfully aware, ability in golf is slow to change, form changes from day to day.  Seems clear ability is no longer tracked and form is all that counts... for me thats worse for lots of reasons.  The congu system had easy ways to adjust if ability was suddenly affected....
		
Click to expand...

But who needs to know your stretch ability other than yourself.  

On a day2day basis, and in the short term, it is only in a competitive context that my handicap actually matters - and it is my *current* form that will in general determine my competitiveness.  

I came to accept some time after the switch that my stretch ability as reflected by my handicap under the old system, was for me, simply something for my ego and to ‘impress’ others.  I am *much* more comfortable today telling another golfer that my HI is 8.2 than I was previously telling him I am 8 and used to be 6.


----------



## sweaty sock (Oct 3, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			But who needs to know your stretch ability other than yourself. 

On a day2day basis, and in the short term, it is only in a competitive context that my handicap actually matters - and it is my *current* form that will in general determine my competitiveness. 

I came to accept some time after the switch that my stretch ability as reflected by my handicap under the old system, was for me, simply something for my ego and to ‘impress’ others.  I am *much* more comfortable today telling another golfer that my HI is 8.2 than I was previously telling him I am 8 and used to be 6.
		
Click to expand...

For me you shouldnt be winning a competition, or even a sweep with your mates, unless youre playing to your stretch ability.  So your handicap should absolutely be closely related to it.

If you needed it for your ego, then thats on you.  I need my old handicap it because I dont want a handicap that lets me win when playing average.

Only my opinion.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 3, 2022)

So I played a comp yesterday where, after a couple of holes, it rained fairly hard for the rest of the front nine. I scored 13 points, the greens and the bunkers played harder because of the water and  the rain on my glasses. On the back 9, the rain stopped and I played better as the weather improved,  the sun came out and I scored 19 points.  Then my handicap jumps up because I had a - 2 year old - competition winning score (86) dropping out,  to be replaced by a weather affected score (91). I think I'd rather the old way of a .1 addition as i cant see why a 2 year old score affects one 2 years later


----------



## JamesR (Oct 3, 2022)

I agree that the new system is useless, unless you play plenty and put in lots of cards.
My handicap is being mostly affected by good scores last year. I haven't actually played to my handicap, save for 2 rounds which were equal to, or below course rating. Yet I have gone down from 2.8 to 2.2.
It doesn't work because my usual friendly games are matchplay, so i can't put in a card as we have gimmies and don't always finish holes out. either that, or when i play on Saturdays I often play club matches rather than joining the weekly stab' or medal.

Under the old system I would have gone up 0.5, rather than down 0.6. The old system is more reflective of my golf this season.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			I definitely don't think you should keep a handicap forever if you're not able to play to it anymore. But at the moment I feel like you can earn a particular handicap and just have it wiped off within a few weeks which doesn't seem right either.
		
Click to expand...

I think I do understand what you mean, and I used to think like that - handicap improvement was something to work towards, and it wasnt going to go back up much in 2 or 3 cards, whereas whs can.
But I think the flaw in the thinking is about handicaps being 'earned'.
While we probably thought that way due to the quicker downward than upwards dynamic of uhs, it wasnt really the core aim of it either - that everyone in a competition on a given day ostensibly has a handicap that gives everyone an equal chance that very day. Its goal wasnt really as a relatively stable indicator of your level as a golfer. Though uhs did that for us, and we were used to it. WHS doesnt, but is more reflective of your recent form, and so a better predictor of how many shot you, and everyone else in the field, should be handicapped that day for a fair competition.

That it doesnt 'age' your scores is maybe its weakness. Though the same criticism could be levelled at the old system - while your hc wasnt explicitly calculated on a 2 or 3 year old score, in reality, the limits on upwards movement meant they still determined your hc today. Unless you had a very dramatic loss of form that attracted manual adjustment from the hc committee or end of year review, you were not going to have your hc increase by more than a shot a year, if even. So the 3 years ago starting point was still influencing your hc 3 years later.

But I do see the weakness of WHS as its lack of aging of scores or failure to account for scores frequency. I put in 25-30 competition scores each year, so my 20 scores are never that old. If someone is only putting in 2 or 3, then yes, there is no way it can indicate form. But then, nor did uhs.


----------



## D-S (Oct 3, 2022)

Outside club medals and , the vast majority of my golf is either team (scratch foursomes), roll-up Bowmaker style competitions (2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4), club knockouts or 4BB matchplay. I can’t remember the last time I played an individual medal/Stableford that wasn’t a club or Open comp. This is typical for most people I know and/or play with. The new system based on a significant proportion of your current golf cannot work for me unless I change the format I have played most of my non competition golf in for the past 20 odd years.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 3, 2022)

D-S said:



			Outside club medals and , the vast majority of my golf is either team (scratch foursomes), roll-up Bowmaker style competitions (2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4), club knockouts or 4BB matchplay. I can’t remember the last time I played an individual medal/Stableford that wasn’t a club or Open comp. This is typical for most people I know and/or play with. The new system based on a significant proportion of your current golf cannot work for me unless I change the format I have played most of my non competition golf in for the past 20 odd years.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with this totally.
The old system suited some but not others.
The new WHS suits some but not others.
But my biggest bug is under the old system sub 60 nett / 50+ points just never happened.
Now it’s once a mouth.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2022)

It works of you're putting regular cards in and by regular I mean once a week or more.
A score from 2 years ago has no relevance to how anyone is playing now and has no business being in a calculation to determine Index.
If you're only putting in 5 or 6 cards a year you have no chance of having an accurate index and that's where the high scores come from, especially if you're playing plenty of non qualifying golf like matchplay. 
If clubs don't put a high enough entry requirement for comps - some have as little as 3 cards in the last year - some people's index will, eventually,  include cards from 5 or 6 years ago.
How does that give a credible index?


----------



## sweaty sock (Oct 3, 2022)

I think the one with scores from 2 or 3 years ago is at least as credible as the one with only scores from the last 3 months.  The one from the last 3 months contains such a small window of your ability its laughable.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2022)

sweaty sock said:



			I think the one with scores from 2 or 3 years ago is at least as credible as the one with only scores from the last 3 months.  The one from the last 3 months contains such a small window of your ability its laughable.
		
Click to expand...

How can it be?
2 or 3 years ago is a world away..it has no bearing on how you're playing now which is what WHS does.
Whether you like it or whether you hate it, as long as regular cards are going in it reflects your current form ....which is what it's designed to do.
The soft and hard caps stop the index from rising too far.
WHS is about current form not some rounds you played in 2019..


----------



## chellie (Oct 3, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Agree with this totally.
The old system suited some but not others.
The new WHS suits some but not others.
But my biggest bug is under the old system sub 60 nett / 50+ points just never happened.
Now it’s once a mouth.
		
Click to expand...

Good grief. Never seen scores like that at ours.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2022)

chellie said:



			Good grief. Never seen scores like that at ours.
		
Click to expand...

Likewise - because those who play competitions also put in sufficient general play cards to achieve accurate handicaps.
Inaccurate handicaps  = high scores.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 3, 2022)

chellie said:



			Good grief. Never seen scores like that at ours.
		
Click to expand...

Loads like it at my place!

Comps only have numbers of around 60 people too... its laughable


----------



## LincolnShep (Oct 3, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Agree with this totally.
The old system suited some but not others.
The new WHS suits some but not others.
But my biggest bug is under the old system sub 60 nett / 50+ points just never happened.
Now it’s once a mouth.
		
Click to expand...

Once a month?  It's weird how the experience differs from club to club.  I've just looked at all the men's individual medal/stableford results at my club since 1st April.

Stableford
16 competitions
Average winning score: 38.8 pts
Highest score: 46
Scores in the 50s: none
Scores in the 40s: seven (four of which occurred in the same competition, only three out of sixteen comps have been won with scores in the 40s)

Medal
Seven competitions
Average winning score: 68.3 (net)
Lowest net score: 64
Net scores under 60: none
Net scores 60-69: ten (five of which were winning scores)

So, all season, we've had *zero* stableford scores in the 50s and *zero* net scores sub 60 - but you're getting either or both once a month!!  What can account for a difference like that?


----------



## sjw (Oct 3, 2022)

LincolnShep said:



			Once a month?  It's weird how the experience differs from club to club.  I've just looked at all the men's individual medal/stableford results at my club since 1st April.

So, all season, we've had *zero* stableford scores in the 50s and *zero* net scores sub 60 - but you're getting them both once a month!!  *What can account for a difference like that?*

Click to expand...

Wild exaggeration?


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 3, 2022)

HampshireHog said:



			Not strictly true due to HI cap.  I agree with sentiment though, personally I wouldn’t allow general play cards to be submitted if you have another card submitted in the previous 7 days.
		
Click to expand...

 But what about competition cards?

Where I play it is possible to play in 4/5 comps a week some weeks.

Should the system not be the same for both types of players?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			If someone is only putting in 2 or 3, then yes, there is no way it can indicate form. But then, nor did uhs.
		
Click to expand...

At my place…if I were to only put in 2 or 3 WHS qualifying scores in a year I wouldn‘t be able to enter most if not all of the main club competitions as entry to these requires that, at the date of entry, I have to have 6 WHS qualifying scores recorded in the previous 12 month period.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 3, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Agree with this totally.
The old system suited some but not others.
The new WHS suits some but not others.
But my biggest bug is under the old system sub 60 nett / 50+ points just never happened.
Now it’s once a mouth.
		
Click to expand...

  That might be true where you play but not where I play. I have a personal memory of once shooting a nett 61 and I was in 5th place.
Albeit since then the course has been toughened up.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Agree with this totally.
The old system suited some but not others.
The new WHS suits some but not others.
But my biggest bug is under the old system sub 60 nett / 50+ points just never happened.
*Now it’s once a month.*

Click to expand...

As many have commented previously and elsewhere about their clubs - this *never* happens at my club.  An occasional Stableford competition might be won with 46 pts,  but most are won with between 41 and 43pts.  Medal comps are by division and for these their is a very occasional net 64 in Div 2, and in Div 1 best would be something like occasional net 66 (CR ~72)


----------



## Bratty (Oct 3, 2022)

The thing that bugs me about the new system is the score differential.
I submitted an 81, 1 under handicap, which knocked an 83 off the 20 completely, and I went up 0.1.
I'm trying to get my handicap down, but it sometimes proves impossible, even when I shoot below my handicap.
Will be interesting to see if Sunday's 3 under changes anything now an 80 is dropping off. 🙈


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2022)

Bratty said:



			The thing that bugs me about the new system is the score differential.
I submitted an 81, 1 under handicap, which knocked an 83 off the 20 completely, and I went up 0.1.
I'm trying to get my handicap down, but it sometimes proves impossible, even when I shoot below my handicap.
Will be interesting to see if Sunday's 3 under changes anything now an 80 is dropping off. 🙈
		
Click to expand...

Next card Fragger puts in..he can shoot 42 points and he's going up because of a good card dropping off...
Seems totally illogical to shoot 6 under handicap and go up....


----------



## Bratty (Oct 3, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Next card Fragger puts in..he can shoot 42 points and he's going up because of a good card dropping off...
Seems totally illogical to shoot 6 under handicap and go up....
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's not likely to happen is it! 🤣🤣🤣


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 3, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Next card Fragger puts in..he can shoot 42 points and he's going up because of a good card dropping off...
Seems totally illogical to shoot 6 under handicap and go up....
		
Click to expand...

My mate Ben is in this situation now. He's been going up like a rocket already, he's just hit 15.1 (he started the year at 12 ish I think). Next round he's losing a 75-gross 8.4 differential. From our old course as well so I reckon he'd have to shoot about 73 or 74 to avoid going up next time. His last decent rounds were 83 so can't see that happening. Obviously the best he can do is limit the damage.


----------



## Bratty (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			My mate Ben is in this situation now. He's been going up like a rocket already, he's just hit 15.1 (he started the year at 12 ish I think). Next round he's losing a 75-gross 8.4 differential. From our old course as well so I reckon he'd have to shoot about 73 or 74 to avoid going up next time. His last decent rounds were 83 so can't see that happening. Obviously the best he can do is limit the damage.
		
Click to expand...

But has he been playing average to worse golf throughout that period?


----------



## HampshireHog (Oct 3, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			But what about competition cards?

Where I play it is possible to play in 4/5 comps a week some weeks.

Should the system not be the same for both types of players?
		
Click to expand...

No problem with that I was specially referring to general play cards.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 3, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Next card Fragger puts in..he can shoot 42 points and he's going up because of a good card dropping off...
Seems totally illogical to shoot 6 under handicap and go up....
		
Click to expand...




Orikoru said:



			My mate Ben is in this situation now. He's been going up like a rocket already, he's just hit 15.1 (he started the year at 12 ish I think). Next round he's losing a 75-gross 8.4 differential. From our old course as well so I reckon he'd have to shoot about 73 or 74 to avoid going up next time. His last decent rounds were 83 so can't see that happening. Obviously the best he can do is limit the damage.
		
Click to expand...

  I could have shot a 7 under handicap today and my handicap will still be going up tomorrow as my best score is 8 under handicap but is my 20th, however it is now a score from 7 months ago and was an exceptional score back then.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 3, 2022)

HampshireHog said:



			No problem with that I was specially referring to general play cards.
		
Click to expand...

 But my question is why should it be a different system for different players?

The UHS allowed players to put in as many cards as they wanted and we had quite several put in card every time they played back then.


----------



## HampshireHog (Oct 3, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			But my question is why should it be a different system for different players?

The UHS allowed players to put in as many cards as they wanted and we had quite several put in card every time they played back then.
		
Click to expand...

It‘s not a different system for different players🤷‍♂️, I just happen to believe there is more value in a card from a competition when the course is set up properly, and cards are being scrutinised.  It’s a personal opinion that people who are regularly playing competitions don’t need general play cards.  

I am not sure what UHS is but before WHS I never met anyone who submitted supplementary cards other than to meet the 3 cards a year requirement or get an initial handicap.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 3, 2022)

chellie said:



			Good grief. Never seen scores like that at ours.
		
Click to expand...

Neither had we for 130 years but since WHS we have had quite a few.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 3, 2022)

Imurg said:



			How can it be?
2 or 3 years ago is a world away..it has no bearing on how you're playing now which is what WHS does.
Whether you like it or whether you hate it, as long as regular cards are going in it reflects your current form ....which is what it's designed to do.
The soft and hard caps stop the index from rising too far.
WHS is about current form not some rounds you played in 2019..
		
Click to expand...

Your scores of 2 or 3 years ago always had an influence, possibly more so before whs. WhS flushes scores out of the system and is effectively a new calculation every card you put in. UHS was a continuous iteration, with ALL that went before it, contributing to the latest handicap. The time distance wasnt as obvious as seeing a date on a score from 2 years ago still in your whs 20 or 8. But it was there.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 3, 2022)

LincolnShep said:



			Once a month?  It's weird how the experience differs from club to club.  I've just looked at all the men's individual medal/stableford results at my club since 1st April.

Stableford
16 competitions
Average winning score: 38.8 pts
Highest score: 46
Scores in the 50s: none
Scores in the 40s: seven (four of which occurred in the same competition, only three out of sixteen comps have been won with scores in the 40s)

Medal
Seven competitions
Average winning score: 68.3 (net)
Lowest net score: 64
Net scores under 60: none
Net scores 60-69: ten (five of which were winning scores)

So, all season, we've had *zero* stableford scores in the 50s and *zero* net scores sub 60 - but you're getting either or both once a month!!  What can account for a difference like that?
		
Click to expand...

People with handicaps that are just not right.
Other things are as I have stated before.
The biggest being the lack of any rough.
So a good player who hits fairways nothing has changed much.
But a golfer can miss every fairway and still be able to hit a 3 wood shot out of the “ rough”

But they still need to get it in the hole


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 3, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			My mate Ben is in this situation now. He's been going up like a rocket already, he's just hit 15.1 (he started the year at 12 ish I think). Next round he's losing a 75-gross 8.4 differential. From our old course as well so I reckon he'd have to shoot about 73 or 74 to avoid going up next time. His last decent rounds were 83 so can't see that happening. Obviously the best he can do is limit the damage.
		
Click to expand...

Limiting 'damage' is the wrong way to think about it. If he cannot shoot the 74 or 73, tgen the hc increase is reflecting the reality.
Maybe people are used to hiding behind the slow increase of the ucs, even when the hc they still had was too low for them.
He scored a 73 20 rounds ago. He hasnt done so in the later 19, and if he doesnt in his next round, then it seems reasonable that his hc should rise. Not unreasonable that the system is going to increase his hc if he doesnt shoot 73 or 74 next game out. Last decent round 83. The  hc has to rise. Is he feeling agrieved by that ?


----------



## D-S (Oct 3, 2022)

One of the issues is that current form is relatively arbitrary in Golf. 
I played recently with a couple of guys in a Pairs competition and they had a better ball score of 22 points, both had high 20s HI’s. I was amazed to see one of the pair have 44 points on his own ball winning a singles comp comfortably 3 weeks later- having seen him play you would not have thought it possible. However ‘current form’ for a high handicapper is massively different/more variable than their ’stretch potential’ than lower players due to their inconsistency. This coupled with the fact that higher handicappers HI’s tended to go up in the transition and lower went down even before the additional shots that slope gave higher indexes ore shots on their CH (typically it was 10-15% more so maybe one for a single figure but 3 or 4 for a 20+). 
These are some reasons for the discontent.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 3, 2022)

D-S said:



			This coupled with the *fact* that higher handicappers HI’s tended to go up in the transition
		
Click to expand...

Where did you get this information from?


----------



## Blob Jacket (Oct 3, 2022)

We’ve had a 52 points and a couple of nett 62s (-10) since WHS came in. Unheard of prior. Extremes, but they do happen.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 3, 2022)

Blob Jacket said:



			We’ve had a 52 points and a couple of nett 62s (-10) since WHS came in. Unheard of prior. Extremes, but they do happen.
		
Click to expand...

What were the handicaps of the players with those scores?


----------



## Blob Jacket (Oct 3, 2022)

rulefan said:



			What were the handicaps of the players with those scores?
		
Click to expand...

2 19s for the 62s. Gross 81 for the 52, whatever that works out at.


----------



## Steve Wilkes (Oct 3, 2022)

Blob Jacket said:



			2 19s for the 62s. Gross 81 for the 52, whatever that works out at.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure you can blame WHS for these scores as why would their handicap by so much higher than under Congu


----------



## D-S (Oct 3, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Where did you get this information from?
		
Click to expand...

EG have not given us the details so you are right it is not a demonstrable fact but anecdotally it appears to be true. Certainly at the lower end HI’s are significantly lower than with UHS. Simply ask any club how many plus handicappers they have now versus pre WHS - we had one, we now have 7.
It used to be the case that anyone with say a value in excess of +2 or 3 was a superstar now it is commonplace. We had many +6 or better playing in a National junior competition at our club last year.
It also appears to be the case that many 18 UHS HI’s went up due to their wide score distribution. 
Even if the above were not true the average slope of 125 necessarily increased the shots for higher handicappers.
Maybe you have seen published information on this? 
Although I seem to recall that in the early WHS toolkit presentations this was inferred when they described the likely value changes to various categories of golfers.


----------



## Springveldt (Oct 3, 2022)

D-S said:



			EG have not given us the details so you are right it is not a demonstrable fact but anecdotally it appears to be true. Certainly at the lower end HI’s are significantly lower than with UHS. Simply ask any club how many plus handicappers they have now versus pre WHS - we had one, we now have 7.
It used to be the case that anyone with say a value in excess of +2 or 3 was a superstar now it is commonplace. We had many +6 or better playing in a National junior competition at our club last year.
It also appears to be the case that many 18 UHS HI’s went up due to their wide score distribution.
Even if the above were not true the average slope of 125 necessarily increased the shots for higher handicappers.
Maybe you have seen published information on this?
Although I seem to recall that in the early WHS toolkit presentations this was inferred when they described the likely value changes to various categories of golfers.
		
Click to expand...

That's what I noticed at my course when we swapped over. The really low guys under congu (2 and under) all went down further. We went from having maybe 1 or 2 guys being a plus to 8 or 9. The 3 to 12 range didn't change that much, I was off 9 under congu and when we changed over my initial index was 7.2 which gave me a playing handicap of 9. I noticed guys that were off 16 under congu suddenly had playing handicaps of 18 or 19 under WHS. Our home course has a slope of 139 though so that definitely contributed.


----------



## Blob Jacket (Oct 3, 2022)

Steve Wilkes said:



			Not sure you can blame WHS for these scores as why would their handicap by so much higher than under Congu
		
Click to expand...

There’s probably a few contributing factors, there usually is with things like this. These could be outliers. The outliers being more extreme with WHS doesn’t mean they don’t happen though. I’m just reporting what I’ve seen post-WHS and not before.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 3, 2022)

I put a card in for my round at West Byfleet last week.  Weather was fine, little bit windy at times but nothing that would much even sway the trees, and I notice the next day that a PCC of 2 was applied.  I just don’t get that.  I have played in comps in seriously difficult conditions at my own track when almost nobody played to their handicap, yet no PCC adjustment.

Now when I played WB the course was pretty quiet, though I think a society may have played earlier in the day.  Could low numbers playing that day, and of that number a large % being visitors who may all have registered their round, have something to do with it?  Baffled.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 3, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I put a card in for my round at West Byfleet last week.  Weather was fine, little bit windy at times but nothing that would much even sway the trees, and I notice the next day that a PCC of 2 was applied.  I just don’t get that.  I have played in comps in seriously difficult conditions at my own track when almost nobody played to their handicap, yet no PCC adjustment.

Now when I played WB the course was pretty quiet, though I think a society may have played earlier in the day.  Could low numbers playing that day, and of that number a large % being visitors who may all have registered their round, have something to do with it?  Baffled.
		
Click to expand...

It'll about the scores. Nothing else .
Yes, if it's poor weather then scores are likely to be higher but not sufficiently to change PCC
Yet, on a calm, sunny day the scoring can be poorer and activate a PCC.
Its all about the scoring.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 3, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Its all about the scoring.
		
Click to expand...

The calculated adjustment is dependent upon:
      Whether significantly fewer players than anticipated attained their *expected score* 
      Whether significantly more players than anticipated attained their *expected score*


----------



## JamesR (Oct 3, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Where did you get this information from?
		
Click to expand...

There was a webinar from a woman at EG who said that for the most part, higher handicappers would go up and lower would go down.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 3, 2022)

JamesR said:



			There was a webinar from a woman at EG who said that for the most part, higher handicappers would go up and lower would go down.
		
Click to expand...

She was talking about one or two strokes at most with only a few exceptions.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 3, 2022)

Blob Jacket said:



			2 19s for the 62s. Gross 81 for the 52, whatever that works out at.
		
Click to expand...

But what were their handicaps under CONGU?


----------



## JamesR (Oct 4, 2022)

rulefan said:



			She was talking about one or two strokes at most with only a few exceptions.
		
Click to expand...

I was only telling you where that info was disseminated.


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 4, 2022)

Bratty said:



			But has he been playing average to worse golf throughout that period?
		
Click to expand...

Yeah of course he has. I was just saying that next time he could arrest the slump, play brilliantly, put in a card of 77 and he'll still be going up anyway. 


Backsticks said:



			Limiting 'damage' is the wrong way to think about it. If he cannot shoot the 74 or 73, tgen the hc increase is reflecting the reality.
Maybe people are used to hiding behind the slow increase of the ucs, even when the hc they still had was too low for them.
He scored a 73 20 rounds ago. He hasnt done so in the later 19, and if he doesnt in his next round, then it seems reasonable that his hc should rise. Not unreasonable that the system is going to increase his hc if he doesnt shoot 73 or 74 next game out. Last decent round 83. The  hc has to rise.* Is he feeling agrieved by that *?
		
Click to expand...

No I don't think he could give a blind toss, he's given up all hope of ever playing well again sadly. I think I just don't like the situation that this system sometimes puts you in, that you feel like you need to beat that one round from 20 rounds ago. Obviously it wasn't designed to make you feel that way, but that's how it ends up feeling in reality. Whereas in the old system that good old round would have seen him cut a few shots at the time and then forgotten about really.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102353
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102351
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102280

Someone tell me WHS is not broken at my club after seeing results like these almost weekly


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102353
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102351
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102280

Someone tell me WHS is not broken at my club after seeing results like these almost weekly 

Click to expand...

Could you post the comparable results pre WHS .


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

upsidedown said:



			Could you post the comparable results pre WHS .
		
Click to expand...

Gone back to 2019 - 

https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101533
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101534
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101527
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101490
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101481

A hodge podge of results there but more guys sub 20 towards the top of the tables.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102353
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102351
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102280

Someone tell me WHS is not broken at my club after seeing results like these almost weekly 

Click to expand...

It's interesting that some clubs are having this problem, others are not. Mine isn't for example but I see the problem at yours. The question is why is it happening at your place and not at mine? I'm not being smart by the way, I don't have the answer.

Has your club looked at these results, looked at the number of cards put in by the people with exceptional scores, are they new starters and so improving etc? There may be a correlation between them that your club can react to. The system is working at many clubs so it suggests that something within your club needs a tweak but without delving into the stats it is hard to know what that is.


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 4, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			It's interesting that some clubs are having this problem, others are not. Mine isn't for example but I see the problem at yours. The question is why is it happening at your place and not at mine? I'm not being smart by the way, I don't have the answer.

Has your club looked at these results, looked at the number of cards put in by the people with exceptional scores, are they new starters and so improving etc? There may be a correlation between them that your club can react to. The system is working at many clubs so it suggests that something within your club needs a tweak but without delving into the stats it is hard to know what that is.
		
Click to expand...

Might be slope/course rating related? If the slope is too high then higher handicappers could be getting too many shots week in week out.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			It's interesting that some clubs are having this problem, others are not. Mine isn't for example but I see the problem at yours. The question is why is it happening at your place and not at mine? I'm not being smart by the way, I don't have the answer.

Has your club looked at these results, looked at the number of cards put in by the people with exceptional scores, are they new starters and so improving etc? There may be a correlation between them that your club can react to. The system is working at many clubs so it suggests that something within your club needs a tweak but without delving into the stats it is hard to know what that is.
		
Click to expand...

I think its coming down to a few things:

1)
Old boys play more golf. 3 comps a week at our place if they fancy it. Their handicaps are far more accurate to current ability as they simply play and submit more cards.
I on the other hand am lucky to submit a card a week. I play 9 holes by myself some evenings and while some Sunday roll ups go in for handicap, not all of them do. I have scores still in my best 20 from over a year ago - my handicap has dropped 6 shots in 12 months and itll be ages till that goes back up (it wont over winter)

2)
20ish handicappers seem to be winning the most - no surprise to me - our track isn't the hardest, anyone half decent can break 90 - if you're off 22 and have a semi average 15 over, that's a gross 64 at our place - more than possible for a low 20's guy. If the track was longer, the older guys would suffer more.

3)
One great round doesn't cut you as much as it used to. All these exceptional rounds now do is amend someone's handicap by a shot or two. Before, if you played well under you'd be in for a much bigger cut from the mid 20's and it would take time to go back up. I witnessed a 22 handicapper shoot 51 points the other week. He played off 13 a year ago.  Made me feel sick.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 4, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			As policing handicaps on an individual basis is impossible,
		
Click to expand...

It certainly shouldn't be, if you have a H'cap Sec who is paying attention.  

What I've seen at both my clubs is that the handicaps have settled down, last year there were a swathe of stupid scoring, suggesting that the conversions down behind the scenes had been to aggressive in cutting low and raising high handicaps. However that's virtually gone this season, and winners are now spread across the field.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102353
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102351
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102280

Someone tell me WHS is not broken at my club after seeing results like these almost weekly 

Click to expand...

Well that paints a rather different picture. You basically have no single figure handicaps playing, how are they going to win anything if they don't play?


----------



## Imurg (Oct 4, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The calculated adjustment is dependent upon:
      Whether significantly fewer players than anticipated attained their *expected score*
      Whether significantly more players than anticipated attained their *expected score*

Click to expand...

Like I said.. it's about the scoring.
SILH was wondering why, on a nice day, PCC kicked in...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			I think its coming down to a few things:

1)
Old boys play more golf. 3 comps a week at our place if they fancy it. Their handicaps are far more accurate to current ability as they simply play and submit more cards.
I on the other hand am lucky to submit a card a week. I play 9 holes by myself some evenings and while some Sunday roll ups go in for handicap, not all of them do. I have scores still in my best 20 from over a year ago - my handicap has dropped 6 shots in 12 months and itll be ages till that goes back up (it wont over winter)

2)
20ish handicappers seem to be winning the most - no surprise to me - our track isn't the hardest, anyone half decent can break 90 - if you're off 22 and have a semi average 15 over, that's a gross 64 at our place - more than possible for a low 20's guy. If the track was longer, the older guys would suffer more.

3)
One great round doesn't cut you as much as it used to. All these exceptional rounds now do is amend someone's handicap by a shot or two. Before, if you played well under you'd be in for a much bigger cut from the mid 20's and it would take time to go back up. I witnessed a 22 handicapper shoot 51 points the other week. He played off 13 a year ago.  Made me feel sick.
		
Click to expand...

Do you think having a minimum number of cards, within the last 12 months, before being able to win a comp would help at your place?

Course difficulty is not something I had really thought of but that makes sense. My place is quite difficulty for an average golfer, and boy am I average , and so the chances of someone burning it up are not high. You can have a good day and touch 40 points, winning scores at ours are around 37-41 points out of a field of around 150, but the idea of someone going off the whites and getting 50 is a real no go. On an easier course people can have a flier if things click.

Tricky how that one gets resolved for you. Maybe it needs to get raised at a county secs meeting and they may get ideas from other clubs who have faced similar problems.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 4, 2022)

The chances of burning up a difficult course, in a handicapped score, is the same as an easy course. CR and Slope level this.

That is not the reason for the rogue clubs.

In our club, I would say there has been no influence on winning scores profile, nor th handicaps profile of those winning post whs.

Though I guess, there must be to a small degree. We certainly experienced the 5 or below handicaps reducing as a group by a shot or two. 10-20 hcs, no change. 20+, hard to tell if they changed, but certainly none skyrocketed, or no crazy scores coming in from that range of hcs.

I suspect the flaw may  be in new hcs, especially high ones, being higher than the old system would ever have given them. Rather than rising hcs. The caps limit that. Nobody goes from 20 to 30 in 2 months and then posts 50 points. It just cant happen.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Well that paints a rather different picture. You basically have no single figure handicaps playing, how are they going to win anything if they don't play? 

Click to expand...

We have a very low number of single guys yeah - they tend to move on to better clubs locally when they get to a certain level. Id say there's about 8 regular sub 10 players.

Current issue though is that you don't even stand much of a chance off sub 15/14.

Id have to beat my best gross score ever, by about 3 shots, just to be in with a shout - and even then someone will most likely go lower.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			The chances of burning up a difficult course, in a handicapped score, is the same as an easy course. CR and Slope level this.
		
Click to expand...

See I think this is where our biggest issue is, were rated as if its a tough track - or at least tougher than it is. I think players should play off their index's pretty much, and not gain shots at our place - but the guys around 20 are gaining 2!

Just to double down here too - there's no way I'm actually a 12 index player either - my golf doesn't translate well to other courses - so the rating is an issue in my opinion.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			See I think this is where our biggest issue is, were rated as if its a tough track - or at least tougher than it is. I think players should play off their index's pretty much, and not gain shots at our place - but the guys around 20 are gaining 2!

Just to double down here too - there's no way I'm actually a 12 index player either - my golf doesn't translate well to other courses - so the rating is an issue in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Rating might be part of it. And might be out a shot, or 2, for a 20 hc. But that still would not explain scores of 50+, or <60. They are 6 or 8 shots wrong at least.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 4, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			. Whereas in the old system* that *good old* round* would have seen him cut *a few shots* at the time and then forgotten about really.
		
Click to expand...

How many shots for one good round?


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 4, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How many shots for one good round?
		
Click to expand...

I can't remember, it was over two years ago.


----------



## sweaty sock (Oct 4, 2022)

Imurg said:



			How can it be?
2 or 3 years ago is a world away..it has no bearing on how you're playing now which is what WHS does.
Whether you like it or whether you hate it, as long as regular cards are going in it reflects your current form ....which is what it's designed to do.
The soft and hard caps stop the index from rising too far.
WHS is about current form not some rounds you played in 2019..
		
Click to expand...

Well because form is so sensitive, if i look at my past 20 scores there are batches that last for months where i play 5 or 6 shots worse than my 'ego' then out of nowhere im back on form with 3 or 4 scores better than my ego'


----------



## rulefan (Oct 4, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Rating might be part of it. And might be out a shot, or 2, for a 20 hc. But that still would not explain scores of 50+, or <60. They are 6 or 8 shots wrong at least.
		
Click to expand...

It would be interesting if posters complaining about high cappers winning would also show the CONGU handicap the player had before conversion. In correspondence with EG I am told that virtually all conversions were within one (or two at most). There were of course some exceptions. Slope of course will have had an effect on high cappers playing handicap.


----------



## Steve Wilkes (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			I think its coming down to a few things:

One great round doesn't cut you as much as it used to. All these exceptional rounds now do is amend someone's handicap by a shot or two. Before, if you played well under you'd be in for a much bigger cut from the mid 20's and it would take time to go back up. I witnessed a 22 handicapper shoot 51 points the other week. *He played off 13 a year ago*.  Made me feel sick.
		
Click to expand...

There must be a reason for this, with the caps or he has really suffered playing really bad for more than a year. I'm the opposite, I'm happy for him


----------



## wjemather (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102353
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102351
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=102280

Someone tell me WHS is not broken at my club after seeing results like these almost weekly 

Click to expand...

Seems like it's scoring expectations that are the real issue. With a Course Rating of 67.1, those medal scores are not particularly exceptional. And PCC was -1 for the Stableford.

That being said, your course does seem to have a PCC of -1 more often than might be expected, so there maybe something not quite as it should be (course setup or ratings) or it could just be the dry weather has made the course easier to score. Anyway, even if there is something amiss, it isn't WHS that is broken.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 4, 2022)

rulefan said:



			It would be interesting if posters complaining about high cappers winning would also show the CONGU handicap the player had before conversion. In correspondence with EG I am told that virtually all conversions were within one (or two at most). There were of course some exceptions. *Slope of course will have had an effect on high cappers playing handicap*.
		
Click to expand...

This. Yes the high guys got a couple shots onto their index, but then you had some more for the playing handicap adjustment as well.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 4, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			I can't remember, it was over two years ago. 

Click to expand...

I think it was only *0.1* per Category.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 4, 2022)

Steve Wilkes said:



			There must be a reason for this, with the caps or he has really suffered playing really bad for more than a year. I'm the opposite, I'm happy for him
		
Click to expand...

The hard cap would kick in, you cant go up 9 shots in a year


----------



## rulefan (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			See I think this is where our biggest issue is, were rated as if its a tough track - or at least tougher than it is. I think players should play off their index's pretty much, and not gain shots at our place -* but the guys around 20 are gaining 2*!
		
Click to expand...

That's probably because the slope says the course is 2 strokes more difficult for the bogey player.
PS. Do you understand how slope works and that CONGU was virtually the only place in the world where it wasn't used.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How many shots for one good round?
		
Click to expand...

Was it not 0.3 or 0.4 per shot under handicap for a cat 3 golfer?


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

rulefan said:



			That's probably because the slope says the course is 2 strokes more difficult for the bogey player.
PS. Do you understand how slope works and that CONGU was virtually the only place in the world where it wasn't used.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah I get it - and I'm telling you that its rated wrong. There is 1 hole (7th SI 1) that a bogey player has to lay up for on our course - every other hole plays exactly the same. 

The course up the road - Gaudet Luce - is rated almost identically to our course and its far harder. Every par 3 is 30 yards longer, more par 5's, insanely long uphill par 4's and rated the same? Joke!


----------



## Slab (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Yeah I get it - and I'm telling you that its rated wrong. There is 1 hole (7th SI 1) that a bogey player has to lay up for on our course - every other hole plays exactly the same.

The course up the road - Gaudet Luce - is rated almost identically to our course and its far harder. Every par 3 is 30 yards longer, more par 5's, insanely long uphill par 4's and rated the same? Joke!
		
Click to expand...

Can I ask what the slope rating is for your course ? (sorry if its been mentioned)


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 4, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I think it was only *0.1* per Category.
		
Click to expand...

I think he was off 13 and shot 75 on a par 68! So either 1.2 cut or 1.8 cut, can't remember if it was 0.2 or 0.3 per shot at that level. And what @Bdill93 said earlier was right, new system he'd have probably only been cut 0.3 in total.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

Slab said:



			Can I ask what the slope rating is for your course ? (sorry if its been mentioned)
		
Click to expand...

https://ravenmeadow.members-section...19/RGC Slope Table For WHS Handicap Index.pdf


----------



## wjemather (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Yeah I get it - and I'm telling you that its rated wrong. There is 1 hole (7th SI 1) that a bogey player has to lay up for on our course - every other hole plays exactly the same.

The course up the road - Gaudet Luce - is rated almost identically to our course and its far harder. Every par 3 is 30 yards longer, more par 5's, insanely long uphill par 4's and rated the same? Joke!
		
Click to expand...

Gaudet Luce has a Course Rating of 69.2 (2.1 higher than yours) and Slope of 124 (2 higher), with a par of 70 (1 higher) - not really seeing anything the same.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Gaudet Luce has a Course Rating of 69.2 (2.1 higher than yours) and Slope of 124 (2 higher), with a par of 70 (1 higher) - not really seeing anything the same.
		
Click to expand...

But their members gain a similar amount of shots, the calculations flow through as similar. I'm not saying the course isn't harder - it is! I still gain a shot there, 20+ guys gain 2...

Same at our place

But its harder there than at mine!

I'm looking for help not to be proved wrong  Please go ahead and tell me why we get scores of 45+ on the regular and a net 61 isn't a guaranteed comp win? I'm all ears...


----------



## wjemather (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			But their members gain a similar amount of shots, the calculations flow through as similar. I'm not saying the course isn't harder - it is! I still gain a shot there, 20+ guys gain 2...

Same at our place

But its harder there than at mine!

I'm looking for help not to be proved wrong 

Click to expand...

Course Handicaps are only calculated based on the Slope, do differences in actual course difficulty are not readily apparent. To assess that, you need to look at the difference in Course Ratings. and there you can see that GL is 2.1 strokes more difficult than RP for a scratch golfer - taking into account the Slope, that difference increases for higher handicaps. In terms of Stableford, 'play-to-handicap' score (i.e. using Course Handicaps, not Playing Handicaps) at GL is 37 points, at RP it is 38.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 4, 2022)

HampshireHog said:



			It‘s not a different system for different players🤷‍♂️, I just happen to believe there is more value in a card from a competition when the course is set up properly, and cards are being scrutinised.  It’s a personal opinion that people who are regularly playing competitions don’t need general play cards. 

I am not sure what UHS is but before WHS I never met anyone who submitted supplementary cards other than to meet the 3 cards a year requirement or get an initial handicap.
		
Click to expand...

UHS = Unified Handicapping System 

As part of the handicap committee we encouraged and had loads submitted under the Supplementary Card system under the UHS. At the the WHS briefings from England Golf we were told to do this and we had quite a number already doing this. The rules were changed long before the WHS came in so players could submit as many as they wanted (except for Cat 1 golfers).


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Course Handicaps are only calculated based on the Slope, do differences in actual course difficulty are not readily apparent. To assess that, you need to look at the difference in Course Ratings. and there you can see that GL is 2.1 strokes more difficult than RP for a scratch golfer - taking into account the Slope, that difference increases for higher handicaps.
		
Click to expand...

And I'm saying that for a bogey golfer, that isn't accurate *at my club.* If you just walked, not even played both courses, you'd know exactly what I mean.

Its noticeable in club matches too, our club get battered almost every time we play another golf club - their 15/16 handicappers are like our 12's/10's in ability.


----------



## Slab (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			But their members gain a similar amount of shots, the calculations flow through as similar. I'm not saying the course isn't harder - it is! I still gain a shot there, 20+ guys gain 2...

Same at our place

But its harder there than at mine!

I'm looking for help not to be proved wrong  Please go ahead and tell me why we get scores of 45+ on the regular and a net 61 isn't a guaranteed comp win? I'm all ears...
		
Click to expand...

That does seem a weird slope

I really cant fathom out these ratings (I know the fault is my own) I’m not criticising your course at all but that looks like off my WHS HI (15.6) I’d play your whites off 17 that’s mental looking at the website, scorecard etc (unless that stream I see is lava filled and there’s Orcs firing arrows at me from the bushes on the back 9)
To find the closest rating. If I play our senior tees (I know that’s not their real name) rated at 68.6/122 WHS has me playing off 13 and its still 500 yards longer than your whites

I realise I’m way oversimplifying the whole process but that does not seem like a ‘world’ handicapping system at work. I can only imagine your course has some hidden challenges to get that rating but you reckon its pretty straightforward


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

Slab said:



			That does seem a weird slope

I really cant fathom out these ratings (I know the fault is my own) I’m not criticising your course at all but that looks like off my WHS HI (15.6) I’d play your whites off 17 that’s mental looking at the website, scorecard etc (unless that stream I see is lava filled and there’s Orcs firing arrows at me from the bushes on the back 9)
To find the closest rating. If I play our senior tees (I know that’s not their real name) rated at 68.6/122 WHS has me playing off 13 and its still 500 yards longer than your whites

I realise I’m way oversimplifying the whole process but that does not seem like a ‘world’ handicapping system at work. I can only imagine your course has some hidden challenges to get that rating but you reckon its pretty straightforward
		
Click to expand...

Im telling you it is.

The stream isnt wide, maybe 2/3m at its widest, comes in to play on 4th OOB right, 6th - 120 yard carry, 7th - 190 yard carry, 8th 30 yard carry - and the 18th which is a whopping (not) 240 yard par 4 that I've eagled multiple times...

I know the limitations of my track - its cheaper than anyone else club on here I bet by a landslide though! Its a lovely place to have started playing golf at - but as you clearly show, the way its been rated is absurd. It should be in the negative of slope


----------



## Slab (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Im telling you it is.

The stream isnt wide, maybe 2/3m at its widest, comes in to play on 4th OOB right, 6th - 120 yard carry, 7th - 190 yard carry, 8th 30 yard carry - and the 18th which is a whopping (not) 240 yard par 4 that I've eagled multiple times...

I know the limitations of my track - its cheaper than anyone else club on here I bet by a landslide though! Its a lovely place to have started playing golf at - but as you clearly show, the way its been rated is absurd. It should be in the negative of slope 

Click to expand...

Yup I gotta agree with you, something does not add up at your place

I just checked another course here I played last weekend again with HI of 15.6 at a course rated 70.1/127 and had to play off 16 course handicap off tees measuring 6,300 yards and tough enough to be used as a European tour venue

It simply doesn't make sense that I can come to your place and be given an extra shot with a CH of 17 at fully 800 yards shorter and by all accounts an easier course


----------



## wjemather (Oct 4, 2022)

Slab said:



			That does seem a weird slope

I really cant fathom out these ratings (I know the fault is my own) I’m not criticising your course at all but that looks like off my WHS HI (15.6) I’d play your whites off 17 that’s mental looking at the website, scorecard etc (unless that stream I see is lava filled and there’s Orcs firing arrows at me from the bushes on the back 9)
To find the closest rating. If I play our senior tees (I know that’s not their real name) rated at 68.6/122 WHS has me playing off 13 and its still 500 yards longer than your whites

I realise I’m way oversimplifying the whole process but that does not seem like a ‘world’ handicapping system at work. I can only imagine your course has some hidden challenges to get that rating but you reckon its pretty straightforward
		
Click to expand...

MC is a stroke and a half more difficult than RP (CR of 68.6 versus CR of 67.1), but this does not show up in Course Handicap calculations (regardless of method is used) as its sole purpose is to level the playing field with respect to the relative difficulty of the course, not reflect differences in actual/absolute difficulty.

You are also using two different Course Handicap calculation methods - the CONGU calculation does not account for the difference in CR and Par, whereas the Mauritius calculation does.

RP (white): CR 67.1 Slope 122 Par 69
MC (blue): CR 68.6 Slope 122 Par 72

CONGU method - both CH are 17.
RoW method - CH at RP is 15, CH at MC is 13 - this simply reflects the difference between Course Rating and Par (1.9 at RP and 3.4 at MC).


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

Slab said:



			Yup I gotta agree with you, something does not add up at your place

I just checked another course here I played last weekend again with HI of 15.6 at a course rated 70.1/127 and had to play off 16 course handicap off tees measuring 6,300 yards and tough enough to be used as a European tour venue

It simply doesn't make sense that I can come to your place and be given an extra shot with a CH of 17 at fully 800 yards shorter and by all accounts an easier course 

Click to expand...

Exactly! And thats why we keep seeing points of 40+

If the slope/ CR or whatever it is that needs changing was genuine, players should be playing off or below their HI at my club for sure. 

I can promise you now, at Hayling in a couple of weeks off a HI of 12.4 I will be lucky for 20+ points


----------



## backwoodsman (Oct 4, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			I think he was off 13 and shot 75 on a par 68! So either 1.2 cut or 1.8 cut, can't remember if it was 0.2 or 0.3 per shot at that level. And what @Bdill93 said earlier was right, new system he'd have probably only been cut 0.3 in total. 

Click to expand...

Broadly speaking, that's six or seven shots better than handicap. So, basic maths suggest he'd drop by a full stroke at least (unless the score happened to be pushing an earlier great round into 21st place). And if it was 7 better than handicap, there'd be an extra 1 shot cut added on. Eg, I recently played 7 better than handicap and my index went down 2.2 overnight.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

wjemather said:



			MC is a stroke and a half more difficult than RP (CR of 68.6 versus CR of 67.1), but this does not show up in Course Handicap calculations (regardless of method is used) as its sole purpose is to level the playing field with respect to the relative difficulty of the course, not reflect differences in actual/absolute difficulty.

You are also using two different Course Handicap calculation methods - the CONGU calculation does not account for the difference in CR and Par, whereas the Mauritius calculation does.

RP (white): CR 67.1 Slope 122 Par 69
MC (blue): CR 68.6 Slope 122 Par 72

CONGU method - both CH are 17.
RoW method - CH at RP is 15, CH at MC is 13 - this simply reflects the difference between Course Rating and Par (1.9 at RP and 3.4 at MC).
		
Click to expand...

All that I read from this is - it obviously doesn't work then. 

How can a course be easier in all aspects of length and difficulty of obstacles and yet still give you more shots?


----------



## Slab (Oct 4, 2022)

wjemather said:



			MC is a stroke and a half more difficult than RP (CR of 68.6 versus CR of 67.1), but this does not show up in Course Handicap calculations (regardless of method is used) as its sole purpose is to level the playing field with respect to the relative difficulty of the course, not reflect differences in actual/absolute difficulty.

You are also using two different Course Handicap calculation methods - the CONGU calculation does not account for the difference in CR and Par, whereas the Mauritius calculation does.

RP (white): CR 67.1 Slope 122 Par 69
MC (blue): CR 68.6 Slope 122 Par 72

CONGU method - both CH are 17.
RoW method - CH at RP is 15, CH at MC is 13 - this simply reflects the difference between Course Rating and Par (1.9 at RP and 3.4 at MC).
		
Click to expand...

Appreciate the info. I have to admit to my shortcomings and I'll probably need to re-read this a few times to understand it fully but the Q that screams out is with all the differences, how can what we all have possible resemble a *W*HS


----------



## IanM (Oct 4, 2022)

Slab said:



			Appreciate the info. I have to admit to my shortcomings and I'll probably need to re-read this a few times to understand it fully but the Q that screams out is with all the differences, how can what we all have possible resemble a *W*HS
		
Click to expand...

Yes indeed,  but maybe what has been done so far, makes full unification possible in due course.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			All that I read from this is - it obviously doesn't work then.

How can a course be easier in all aspects of length and difficulty of obstacles and yet still give you more shots? 

Click to expand...

Handicap systems are simply designed to allow people to compete on a level playing field. The actual number of strokes each player gets is largely irrelevant; what matters is the number of strokes they get relative to each other. Using the CONGU method, your target score is the Course Rating (or "CR-Par" Stableford points); pretty much everywhere else in the world, your target score would be Par (36 points).

If you want to compare course difficulty in absolute terms, simply compare Course Ratings for scratch golfers and Bogey Ratings for ~20 handicappers. (If interested you can lookup ratings at the USGA's Course Rating and Slope Database).


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Handicap systems are simply designed to allow people to compete on a level playing field. The actual number of strokes each player gets is largely irrelevant; what matters is the number of strokes they get relative to each other. Using the CONGU method, your target score is the Course Rating (or "CR-Par" Stableford points); pretty much everywhere else in the world, your target score would be Par (36 points).

If you want to compare course difficulty in absolute terms, simply compare Course Ratings for scratch golfers and Bogey Ratings for ~20 handicappers. (If interested you can lookup ratings at the USGA's Course Rating and Slope Database).
		
Click to expand...

None of this explains how to actually help in my situation of 20+ HI guys running away with almost every comp with 40+ points.


----------



## Slab (Oct 4, 2022)

IanM said:



			Yes indeed,  but maybe what has been done so far, makes full unification possible in due course.
		
Click to expand...

Let's hope so
Meantime I can't see any chance @Bdill93 is gonna invite me round for a match


----------



## wjemather (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			None of this explains how to actually help in my situation of 20+ HI guys running away with almost every comp with 40+ points.
		
Click to expand...

40+ points isn't an exceptional score at most courses. This is especially true at your place, where playing to handicap is 38 points.
However, if you think something is amiss, you should contact your handicap committee.


----------



## D-S (Oct 4, 2022)

This discussion shows to me why we, as the the rest of the world have done, should have moved to CR-Par in Course Handicaps. 
I know that all the nay sayers will say that par is not a measure of difficulty and that you can have 5000 yard par 72 and a 7500 par 72 etc. etc. I also know that performance against course rating is the only proper measure of achievement. However, how many people on here say 'I shot 7 over the CR' or that the medal was won by someone shooting x under the CR. They never do, they always refer to number of poibnts or a net number. We all use the shorthand of score against par as a typical measure of performance. 
At courses with very low CR versus par your CH would automatically come down and then you would realise that it is an easy course. As a 5 handicapper I almost always get 5 or 6 shots as a CH, however if CR-Par was used I would frequently on an easy course off the yellow tees have CH of 2 or a tough one offf the whites a CH of 7 or 8. Then my stableford points score would be an immediate indication of how well or badly I (and everyone else) played without the extra step (which few do) of checking what my real gross differential was.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 4, 2022)

LincolnShep said:



			Once a month?  It's weird how the experience differs from club to club.  I've just looked at all the men's individual medal/stableford results at my club since 1st April.

Stableford
16 competitions
Average winning score: 38.8 pts
Highest score: 46
Scores in the 50s: none
Scores in the 40s: seven (four of which occurred in the same competition, only three out of sixteen comps have been won with scores in the 40s)

Medal
Seven competitions
Average winning score: 68.3 (net)
Lowest net score: 64
Net scores under 60: none
Net scores 60-69: ten (five of which were winning scores)

So, all season, we've had *zero* stableford scores in the 50s and *zero* net scores sub 60 - but you're getting either or both once a month!!  What can account for a difference like that?
		
Click to expand...

It'll be partly down to the difference between CR and Par (if CR was a lot lower than Par, you'd expect higher points), and the types of player at your club.

The club you are at is a reasonably tough course, with many established golfers (I'm not sure you have any entry limitations related to handicap, but I know you have several divisions). Likewise, my club is similar, and we limit many comps to a handicap of 24. So, I'd not expect too many ridiculously good scores). However, at our OLD club, that CR was lower than Par and it had many new, beginner type golfers, it was common to see scores in the high 40's (stableford) frequently.

There was a junior comp at my place last week, the winner had 56 points. This junior already had 10 scores on their record (9 this year), they simply went out and shot a massively improved score.

I happened to look at the Titleist Order of Merit leaders on howdidido, and was surprised to see several golfers at the very top of the leaderboard from 2 or 3 of the same club. I've no idea what factors would lead to that, but it did seem odd that being at one club must clearly provide a significant advantage to being at another club (or most other clubs). I had a scan at some of the club results, and for some of them also noticed ridiculously good scores in many competitions.

If all was equal, and players had many scores on their record, the system should be relatively "fair". Possibly with the exception that any player, no matter how experienced, may always improve, and the scope of improvement is much bigger the higher the handicapper. Hopefully, the 95% factors that in. However, the biggest improvers are always going to be, in general, those that are starting the game and have very few scores on their record. They are always likely to submit 3 (or even a lot more than that) dodgy scores as they get used to the game, the course and the pressure. However, before they get their 20 scores in, hopefully they've settled down and many of those golfers will then show they are capable of shooting much better scores than their first few submissions. Of course, the issue is that the scores that result in rightful big reductions in handicap can also be the ones that smash the field in a competition, and disheartens some of those competitors. One improving golfer might be able to shoot 2 or 3 of these great scores before their handicap catches up. If you have 5 or 6 newish golfers in your competitions, they can start to take over those competitions for a while. And, if you are a club that attracts beginner golfers all the time, then you may well always have this issue. It will never be a case of "WHS will eventually catch up", because that is only true on an individual case, but it will always be catching up if the club always has new golfers in their competitions.

Divisions will help this to some extent, if the club has enough competitors to do this. Although, it might still be a little tough on high handicappers who have genuinely been high handicappers for years with many scores. All you are doing is protecting the lower handicappers from the new high handicappers who are best placed to shoot great scores, but just dumping them in with the genuine high handicappers who are at or close to their potential.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 4, 2022)

Out of interest just checked club website for most  recent comp.  It was a seniors comp…for all seniors who have played in an inter club match this season so competitive players. 31 played off our front tees - same par but 2 shots lower CR than back tees - so likely to generate higher Stableford scores than off backs.  Weather was fair.

Only six players played to handicap or better.  Winning score was 43 pts with just 3 (CHs 18, 20, 6) scoring 40pts or more.

As I have mentioned before…I think this sort of result is typical of my place.  Our greens are very well protected by our bunkers, and our bunkers are tough but fair.  If you are not good out of bunkers you will struggle if you get in them, and our higher handicappers are typically those who will struggle - that’s often why they are high handicappers. And so the likelihood of a v high handicapper, or indeed anyone, racking up a 46ptr is v low, and a 50+ being so low that it just doesn’t happen.


----------



## Neilds (Oct 4, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			There was a junior comp at my place last week, the winner had 56 points. This junior already had 10 scores on their record (9 this year), they simply went out and shot a massively improved score.
		
Click to expand...

You really can't use a junior who has only just started playing the game as a benchmark in this argument. He will still be getting used to playing and will obviously improve as he plays more.  These outlying scores will level off as his handicap improves and settles down.

PS - if i have misunderstood why you posted this, then apologies.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Was it not 0.3 or 0.4 per shot under handicap for a cat 3 golfer?
		
Click to expand...

0.3


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 4, 2022)

May or may not be of interest to folks, but I've been looking at scores/handicaps/finishing positions of a number of comps at our place pre/post WHS. Attached is a screenshot of a table of stats and a chart.

The table is largely self explanatory but shows average scores and handicaps of winners, 2-5th place, 6-10th place, along with proportions of entrants from the various handicap levels, average scores across various handicap groups and average finishing positions across handicap groups.

The data was taken from 9 or 10 Stableford comps, played largely between 1st March and 15th September each year, with the exception of 2020, where, due to the disruption of C-19, rescheduling resulted in a few of the comps being played into October...as I recall though, the weather wasn't too bad so scoring patterns were not significantly affected.

Looking at the first block of data we see that largely there is no change at all in any of the categories across the 4 years...with the exception of the average handicap of folks who won the competitions....the increase from mid-teens to mid/low 20's is a significant change....however...that change is not mirrored when you look at the handicaps of golfers who finished in 2-5th places or indeed 6-10th places. This suggests to me that, whilst one or perhaps two golfers from higher handicap groups might be having "days in the sun" since the WHS was introduced, we are not seeing a raft of higher handicappers sweeping all before them. We will come back to this little anomaly later.

Looking at the second block of data, we see that the make-up of comps in terms of entries from various handicap groups is largely similar....yes there was an upsurge between 2019 and 2020 in terms of the number of >28 h'cappers and it was in the summer of 2020 where we saw a whole new batch of players taking up golf...however, looking in to 2021/22 we see that the increase has only been maintained, not extended further....so we cannot easily attribute the increased success of higher handicaps to the relative number of entrants...yes there are proportionally more >28 h'cappers entering comps (certainly compared to 2019 but not 2020), but the base number was relatively low in the first place.

If you then go on to look at the scoring patterns you see that perhaps the lower and mid handicappers are scoring a little bit less than what they were in 2019/20 ago and the higher handicappers scoring 1-2 shots better...but there is no evidence supporting what seems to be a common complaint that higher handicappers across the board are now shooting silly scores every week....maybe the odd one or two is now a little more likely to shoot a good score than before but we are not seeing hordes of golfers racking up silly scores on a regular basis. 

The single line showing the number of scores of >42 points is further evidence that, at my club at least, the WHS has not resulted in a drastic increase in scoring.

Finally...and perhaps this table is the most interesting of the lot (and is the data that is represented in the chart that is attached) ....we have a record of the average finishing position of various handicap groups in competitions....because the number of entrants has varied across the years, this data has been normalised to represent the finishing position in a field of 100 golfers. Now....given the handicapping system is supposed to present a level playing field for all, we would expect that would result in everyone having an equal chance of winning, coming last or finishing in mid table obscurity....so all things being equal we would expect the average finishing position of each handicap group to be 50th (in our normalised data).

However, we know that golf does not work like this and that lower handicappers are more consistent than their higher handicap brethren....perhaps what we should see is that lower handicappers typically finish on average better than 50th and higher handicappers worse than 50th. The four years of data clearly show a levelling up...in 2019 low handicappers finished significantly better than half-way and very high handicappers significantly worse....things levelled up a bit in 2020 and then since the introduction of WHS have evened things out further....perhaps to the point where high handicappers are over performing a bit....the 2021 data is probably what I would have expected to see if I had to guess in advance. It will be very interesting to see how this progresses in 2023. The chart shows graphically this "levelling up" which is what I believe is fundamentally responsible for the higher handicappers to be winning more of the comps and thus pushing up the "average winning handicap".

So...in summary I would conclude based on data from my own club that...

WHS has not resulted in a raft of handicap increases....I have other data that shows of the 70 players who were regular competition entrants in 2019 and still are in 2022, 45 of them now play off lower Comp Handicaps than their old Playing Handicap.
WHS has not resulted in a wholesale increase in scores...there was an increase in 2021 but this seems to have now settled back to previous levels...I wonder if this is due to folks handicaps settling down, getting into a rhythm of submitting scores etc. There also were a couple of course setup issues (health and safety, land disputes) that forced us to use a couple of forward tees for periods in 2021 that may have helped scores during this period.
WHS has perhaps increased the probability of a higher handicap golfer having a day in the sun. There has seemingly been a levelling off, resulting in lower handicappers being a little less competitive and higher handicappers a little more competitive. Whether the slope has flattened out a little too much is a bit early to say.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 4, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			May or may not be of interest to folks, but I've been looking at scores/handicaps/finishing positions of a number of comps at our place pre/post WHS. Attached is a screenshot of a table of stats and a chart.

The table is largely self explanatory but shows average scores and handicaps of winners, 2-5th place, 6-10th place, along with proportions of entrants from the various handicap levels, average scores across various handicap groups and average finishing positions across handicap groups.

The data was taken from 9 or 10 Stableford comps, played largely between 1st March and 15th September each year, with the exception of 2020, where, due to the disruption of C-19, rescheduling resulted in a few of the comps being played into October...as I recall though, the weather wasn't too bad so scoring patterns were not significantly affected.

Looking at the first block of data we see that largely there is no change at all in any of the categories across the 4 years...with the exception of the average handicap of folks who won the competitions....the increase from mid-teens to mid/low 20's is a significant change....however...that change is not mirrored when you look at the handicaps of golfers who finished in 2-5th places or indeed 6-10th places. This suggests to me that, whilst one or perhaps two golfers from higher handicap groups might be having "days in the sun" since the WHS was introduced, we are not seeing a raft of higher handicappers sweeping all before them. We will come back to this little anomaly later.

Looking at the second block of data, we see that the make-up of comps in terms of entries from various handicap groups is largely similar....yes there was an upsurge between 2019 and 2020 in terms of the number of >28 h'cappers and it was in the summer of 2020 where we saw a whole new batch of players taking up golf...however, looking in to 2021/22 we see that the increase has only been maintained, not extended further....so we cannot easily attribute the increased success of higher handicaps to the relative number of entrants...yes there are proportionally more >28 h'cappers entering comps (certainly compared to 2019 but not 2020), but the base number was relatively low in the first place.

If you then go on to look at the scoring patterns you see that perhaps the lower and mid handicappers are scoring a little bit less than what they were in 2019/20 ago and the higher handicappers scoring 1-2 shots better...but there is no evidence supporting what seems to be a common complaint that higher handicappers across the board are now shooting silly scores every week....maybe the odd one or two is now a little more likely to shoot a good score than before but we are not seeing hordes of golfers racking up silly scores on a regular basis.

The single line showing the number of scores of >42 points is further evidence that, at my club at least, the WHS has not resulted in a drastic increase in scoring.

Finally...and perhaps this table is the most interesting of the lot (and is the data that is represented in the chart that is attached) ....we have a record of the average finishing position of various handicap groups in competitions....because the number of entrants has varied across the years, this data has been normalised to represent the finishing position in a field of 100 golfers. Now....given the handicapping system is supposed to present a level playing field for all, we would expect that would result in everyone having an equal chance of winning, coming last or finishing in mid table obscurity....so all things being equal we would expect the average finishing position of each handicap group to be 50th (in our normalised data).

However, we know that golf does not work like this and that lower handicappers are more consistent than their higher handicap brethren....perhaps what we should see is that lower handicappers typically finish on average better than 50th and higher handicappers worse than 50th. The four years of data clearly show a levelling up...in 2019 low handicappers finished significantly better than half-way and very high handicappers significantly worse....things levelled up a bit in 2020 and then since the introduction of WHS have evened things out further....perhaps to the point where high handicappers are over performing a bit....the 2021 data is probably what I would have expected to see if I had to guess in advance. It will be very interesting to see how this progresses in 2023. The chart shows graphically this "levelling up" which is what I believe is fundamentally responsible for the higher handicappers to be winning more of the comps and thus pushing up the "average winning handicap".

So...in summary I would conclude based on data from my own club that...

WHS has not resulted in a raft of handicap increases....I have other data that shows of the 70 players who were regular competition entrants in 2019 and still are in 2022, 45 of them now play off lower Comp Handicaps than their old Playing Handicap.
WHS has not resulted in a wholesale increase in scores...there was an increase in 2021 but this seems to have now settled back to previous levels...I wonder if this is due to folks handicaps settling down, getting into a rhythm of submitting scores etc. There also were a couple of course setup issues (health and safety, land disputes) that forced us to use a couple of forward tees for periods in 2021 that may have helped scores during this period.
WHS has perhaps increased the probability of a higher handicap golfer having a day in the sun. There has seemingly been a levelling off, resulting in lower handicappers being a little less competitive and higher handicappers a little more competitive. Whether the slope has flattened out a little too much is a bit early to say.

View attachment 44660

View attachment 44661

Click to expand...

Thanks. Nice data.
Suggests WHS really has done a great job in levelling things.


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Gone back to 2019 -

https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101533
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101534
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101527
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101490
https://www.howdidido.com/My/Result?sectionId=4631&compNumber=101481

A hodge podge of results there but more guys sub 20 towards the top of the tables.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time, I'm no statistician but I'm not seeing a great deal of difference pre WHS . Also note guy who won in 2019  with a nett 63 off a 18 handicap is now off 14 with a nett 71 the other day.
I'd say and I think you've said it too but you've a easy course to score on so always going to get "Day in the sun " scores


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 4, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			May or may not be of interest to folks, but I've been looking at scores/handicaps/finishing positions of a number of comps at our place pre/post WHS. Attached is a screenshot of a table of stats and a chart.

The table is largely self explanatory but shows average scores and handicaps of winners, 2-5th place, 6-10th place, along with proportions of entrants from the various handicap levels, average scores across various handicap groups and average finishing positions across handicap groups.

The data was taken from 9 or 10 Stableford comps, played largely between 1st March and 15th September each year, with the exception of 2020, where, due to the disruption of C-19, rescheduling resulted in a few of the comps being played into October...as I recall though, the weather wasn't too bad so scoring patterns were not significantly affected.

Looking at the first block of data we see that largely there is no change at all in any of the categories across the 4 years...with the exception of the average handicap of folks who won the competitions....the increase from mid-teens to mid/low 20's is a significant change....however...that change is not mirrored when you look at the handicaps of golfers who finished in 2-5th places or indeed 6-10th places. This suggests to me that, whilst one or perhaps two golfers from higher handicap groups might be having "days in the sun" since the WHS was introduced, we are not seeing a raft of higher handicappers sweeping all before them. We will come back to this little anomaly later.

Looking at the second block of data, we see that the make-up of comps in terms of entries from various handicap groups is largely similar....yes there was an upsurge between 2019 and 2020 in terms of the number of >28 h'cappers and it was in the summer of 2020 where we saw a whole new batch of players taking up golf...however, looking in to 2021/22 we see that the increase has only been maintained, not extended further....so we cannot easily attribute the increased success of higher handicaps to the relative number of entrants...yes there are proportionally more >28 h'cappers entering comps (certainly compared to 2019 but not 2020), but the base number was relatively low in the first place.

If you then go on to look at the scoring patterns you see that perhaps the lower and mid handicappers are scoring a little bit less than what they were in 2019/20 ago and the higher handicappers scoring 1-2 shots better...but there is no evidence supporting what seems to be a common complaint that higher handicappers across the board are now shooting silly scores every week....maybe the odd one or two is now a little more likely to shoot a good score than before but we are not seeing hordes of golfers racking up silly scores on a regular basis.

The single line showing the number of scores of >42 points is further evidence that, at my club at least, the WHS has not resulted in a drastic increase in scoring.

Finally...and perhaps this table is the most interesting of the lot (and is the data that is represented in the chart that is attached) ....we have a record of the average finishing position of various handicap groups in competitions....because the number of entrants has varied across the years, this data has been normalised to represent the finishing position in a field of 100 golfers. Now....given the handicapping system is supposed to present a level playing field for all, we would expect that would result in everyone having an equal chance of winning, coming last or finishing in mid table obscurity....so all things being equal we would expect the average finishing position of each handicap group to be 50th (in our normalised data).

However, we know that golf does not work like this and that lower handicappers are more consistent than their higher handicap brethren....perhaps what we should see is that lower handicappers typically finish on average better than 50th and higher handicappers worse than 50th. The four years of data clearly show a levelling up...in 2019 low handicappers finished significantly better than half-way and very high handicappers significantly worse....things levelled up a bit in 2020 and then since the introduction of WHS have evened things out further....perhaps to the point where high handicappers are over performing a bit....the 2021 data is probably what I would have expected to see if I had to guess in advance. It will be very interesting to see how this progresses in 2023. The chart shows graphically this "levelling up" which is what I believe is fundamentally responsible for the higher handicappers to be winning more of the comps and thus pushing up the "average winning handicap".

So...in summary I would conclude based on data from my own club that...

WHS has not resulted in a raft of handicap increases....I have other data that shows of the 70 players who were regular competition entrants in 2019 and still are in 2022, 45 of them now play off lower Comp Handicaps than their old Playing Handicap.
WHS has not resulted in a wholesale increase in scores...there was an increase in 2021 but this seems to have now settled back to previous levels...I wonder if this is due to folks handicaps settling down, getting into a rhythm of submitting scores etc. There also were a couple of course setup issues (health and safety, land disputes) that forced us to use a couple of forward tees for periods in 2021 that may have helped scores during this period.
WHS has perhaps increased the probability of a higher handicap golfer having a day in the sun. There has seemingly been a levelling off, resulting in lower handicappers being a little less competitive and higher handicappers a little more competitive. Whether the slope has flattened out a little too much is a bit early to say.

View attachment 44660

View attachment 44661

Click to expand...

Excellent data and reply and backs up article from Golf Monthly https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field


----------



## yandabrown (Oct 4, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			May or may not be of interest to folks, but I've been looking at scores/handicaps/finishing positions of a number of comps at our place pre/post WHS. Attached is a screenshot of a table of stats and a chart.

The table is largely self explanatory but shows average scores and handicaps of winners, 2-5th place, 6-10th place, along with proportions of entrants from the various handicap levels, average scores across various handicap groups and average finishing positions across handicap groups.

The data was taken from 9 or 10 Stableford comps, played largely between 1st March and 15th September each year, with the exception of 2020, where, due to the disruption of C-19, rescheduling resulted in a few of the comps being played into October...as I recall though, the weather wasn't too bad so scoring patterns were not significantly affected.

Looking at the first block of data we see that largely there is no change at all in any of the categories across the 4 years...with the exception of the average handicap of folks who won the competitions....the increase from mid-teens to mid/low 20's is a significant change....however...that change is not mirrored when you look at the handicaps of golfers who finished in 2-5th places or indeed 6-10th places. This suggests to me that, whilst one or perhaps two golfers from higher handicap groups might be having "days in the sun" since the WHS was introduced, we are not seeing a raft of higher handicappers sweeping all before them. We will come back to this little anomaly later.

Looking at the second block of data, we see that the make-up of comps in terms of entries from various handicap groups is largely similar....yes there was an upsurge between 2019 and 2020 in terms of the number of >28 h'cappers and it was in the summer of 2020 where we saw a whole new batch of players taking up golf...however, looking in to 2021/22 we see that the increase has only been maintained, not extended further....so we cannot easily attribute the increased success of higher handicaps to the relative number of entrants...yes there are proportionally more >28 h'cappers entering comps (certainly compared to 2019 but not 2020), but the base number was relatively low in the first place.

If you then go on to look at the scoring patterns you see that perhaps the lower and mid handicappers are scoring a little bit less than what they were in 2019/20 ago and the higher handicappers scoring 1-2 shots better...but there is no evidence supporting what seems to be a common complaint that higher handicappers across the board are now shooting silly scores every week....maybe the odd one or two is now a little more likely to shoot a good score than before but we are not seeing hordes of golfers racking up silly scores on a regular basis.

The single line showing the number of scores of >42 points is further evidence that, at my club at least, the WHS has not resulted in a drastic increase in scoring.

Finally...and perhaps this table is the most interesting of the lot (and is the data that is represented in the chart that is attached) ....we have a record of the average finishing position of various handicap groups in competitions....because the number of entrants has varied across the years, this data has been normalised to represent the finishing position in a field of 100 golfers. Now....given the handicapping system is supposed to present a level playing field for all, we would expect that would result in everyone having an equal chance of winning, coming last or finishing in mid table obscurity....so all things being equal we would expect the average finishing position of each handicap group to be 50th (in our normalised data).

However, we know that golf does not work like this and that lower handicappers are more consistent than their higher handicap brethren....perhaps what we should see is that lower handicappers typically finish on average better than 50th and higher handicappers worse than 50th. The four years of data clearly show a levelling up...in 2019 low handicappers finished significantly better than half-way and very high handicappers significantly worse....things levelled up a bit in 2020 and then since the introduction of WHS have evened things out further....perhaps to the point where high handicappers are over performing a bit....the 2021 data is probably what I would have expected to see if I had to guess in advance. It will be very interesting to see how this progresses in 2023. The chart shows graphically this "levelling up" which is what I believe is fundamentally responsible for the higher handicappers to be winning more of the comps and thus pushing up the "average winning handicap".

So...in summary I would conclude based on data from my own club that...

WHS has not resulted in a raft of handicap increases....I have other data that shows of the 70 players who were regular competition entrants in 2019 and still are in 2022, 45 of them now play off lower Comp Handicaps than their old Playing Handicap.
WHS has not resulted in a wholesale increase in scores...there was an increase in 2021 but this seems to have now settled back to previous levels...I wonder if this is due to folks handicaps settling down, getting into a rhythm of submitting scores etc. There also were a couple of course setup issues (health and safety, land disputes) that forced us to use a couple of forward tees for periods in 2021 that may have helped scores during this period.
WHS has perhaps increased the probability of a higher handicap golfer having a day in the sun. There has seemingly been a levelling off, resulting in lower handicappers being a little less competitive and higher handicappers a little more competitive. Whether the slope has flattened out a little too much is a bit early to say.

View attachment 44660

View attachment 44661

Click to expand...

Thanks, I did some similar but slightly different data analysis of our comp scores from between 2018 and 2022 and found scores were not remarkably better and that wins were now more in relationship to number of players from a particular handicap group: https://forums.golfmonthly.com/thre...more-level-playing-field.112934/#post-2539765


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 4, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			So...in summary I would conclude based on data from my own club that...

WHS has not resulted in a raft of handicap increases....I have other data that shows of the 70 players who were regular competition entrants in 2019 and still are in 2022, 45 of them now play off lower Comp Handicaps than their old Playing Handicap.
WHS has not resulted in a wholesale increase in scores...there was an increase in 2021 but this seems to have now settled back to previous levels...I wonder if this is due to folks handicaps settling down, getting into a rhythm of submitting scores etc. There also were a couple of course setup issues (health and safety, land disputes) that forced us to use a couple of forward tees for periods in 2021 that may have helped scores during this period.
WHS has perhaps increased the probability of a higher handicap golfer having a day in the sun. There has seemingly been a levelling off, resulting in lower handicappers being a little less competitive and higher handicappers a little more competitive. Whether the slope has flattened out a little too much is a bit early to say.


Click to expand...

i did a very similar analysis last winter as the howls from the low guys was very loud, and came to alomost identical conclusions as you. The low guys were still there at the top, but there was a far greater chance of a high guy scooping than previously. With another year under our belt, low handicappers have returned to the winning circle, tho not in as large a number as previously. It's still slightly biased to higher handicaps, as UK wide date from HDID has shown, and that is a major flaw, surely if there's any bias in the system it should reward skill over folks who geta lot of shots?

Anyway, we had a knee jerk, and it was too soon, we tweaked some comps, added a couple of scratch events, when I'd cautioned to hold for another year till things settle down.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

Slab said:



			Let's hope so
Meantime I can't see any chance @Bdill93 is gonna invite me round for a match 

Click to expand...

Welcome any time - not that I recommend it though  



upsidedown said:



			Thanks for taking the time, *I'm no statistician* but I'm not seeing a great deal of difference pre WHS . Also note guy who won in 2019  with a nett 63 off a 18 handicap is now off 14 with a nett 71 the other day.
I'd say and I think you've said it too but you've a easy course to score on so always going to get "Day in the sun " scores
		
Click to expand...

I'm not either - but it is more common now than before that the top 10 is populated with 20+ handicaps and for sure, some belting scores too

I think handicaps rising quickly is the biggest difference maker at my club - alongside a weirdly rated track


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 4, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			and that is a major flaw, surely if there's any bias in the system it should reward skill over folks who get lot of shots?
		
Click to expand...

IT shouldnt. Handicapped competitions arent about skill  They are about performance on the day relative to your hc.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Thanks. Nice data.
Suggests WHS really has done a great job in levelling things.
		
Click to expand...

To me this suggests that its made it easier for the higher handicap golfer? Average handicap of winner has gone from 15.2 to 25?!

Does appear that the average scores in general are closer though?


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			To me this suggests that its made it easier for the higher handicap golfer? Average handicap of winner has gone from 15.2 to 25?!

Does appear that the average scores in general are closer though?
		
Click to expand...

Indeed....but the average handicap of folks finishing 2nd to 5th or 6th to 10th has not increased appreciably.....that would suggest that rather than handing a blanket advantage to all higher handicappers (if that was the case we would see the "places" mainly populated by vastly higher handicappers....but that has not happened), what has happened is that the likelihood of one individual having a good day has increased.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 4, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			Indeed....but the average handicap of folks finishing 2nd to 5th or 6th to 10th has not increased appreciably.....that would suggest that rather than handing a blanket advantage to all higher handicappers (if that was the case we would see the "places" mainly populated by vastly higher handicappers....but that has not happened), what has happened is that* the likelihood of one individual having a good day has increased*.
		
Click to expand...

Ravenmeadow in a nutshell


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 4, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Ravenmeadow in a nutshell
		
Click to expand...

But from what you are saying, such good days are utterly exceptional days by most other standards at other courses....which wouldn't point to the WHS being the issue per se, but more of the general managment of handicaps or perhaps as you suspect a quirk of your course or course rating that is giving higher handicappers more shots than perhaps they might need.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 4, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			Indeed....but the average handicap of folks finishing 2nd to 5th or 6th to 10th has not increased appreciably.....that would suggest that rather than handing a blanket advantage to all higher handicappers (if that was the case we would see the "places" mainly populated by vastly higher handicappers....but that has not happened), what has happened is that the likelihood of one individual having a good day has increased.
		
Click to expand...

I was just going to post a comment re your last clause. There is a better chance of an individual higher capper having his 'day in the sun'.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 4, 2022)

Neilds said:



			You really can't use a junior who has only just started playing the game as a benchmark in this argument. He will still be getting used to playing and will obviously improve as he plays more.  These outlying scores will level off as his handicap improves and settles down.

PS - if i have misunderstood why you posted this, then apologies. 

Click to expand...

I was simply using a Junior as an example of an improving golfer. I'm not sure what the improvement rate is between a 12 year old and a 30 year old, both starting the game from scratch. Maybe a child has a higher improvement rate. However, in both cases, both have a good chance of being able to improve at a fairly rapid rate, in general.


----------



## IanM (Oct 5, 2022)

Of course it works!!

Donna's buddy got cut from 54 to 52.6 yesterday!

That's a course handicap of 60!


----------



## rulefan (Oct 5, 2022)

IanM said:



			Of course it works!!

Donna's buddy got cut from 54 to 52.6 yesterday!

That's a course handicap of 60!

Click to expand...

That'll keep them interested and keep the subs of fellow members down.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 5, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			But my biggest bug is under the old system sub 60 nett / 50+ points just never happened.
Now it’s once a mouth.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't seen this at my club or in discussion with any friends at other clubs. Scores don't seem different from pre-WHS days. Seems to be a forum myth. If it is genuinely happening at your club you have a challenge that your committee need to address.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 5, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Yes, the other system was way too slow to react, perhaps this is too quick. Maybe best 10 out of 20 spreads it better? Whatever they do, someone wont be happy 

Click to expand...

Best 10 out of 20 would make it even more volatile. If you want to limit the pace of change then maybe best 5 or 6 out of 20 would target top end playing ability.

Fundamentally:
Old system: handicap based on potential
New sytem: handicap based on form


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 5, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Best 10 out of 20 would make it even more volatile. If you want to limit the pace of change then maybe best 5 or 6 out of 20 would target top end playing ability.

*Fundamentally:
Old system: handicap based on potential
New sytem: handicap based on form*

Click to expand...

I think this pretty much sums it up. 

The only problem is when players do not have sufficient cards in and their h/c is based on scores from 2-3 years ago, not a good guide of form. That is then up to clubs to manage that internally to keep comps legitimate.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 5, 2022)

Imurg said:



			It'll about the scores. Nothing else .
Yes, if it's poor weather then scores are likely to be higher but not sufficiently to change PCC
Yet, on a calm, sunny day the scoring can be poorer and activate a PCC.
Its all about the scoring.
		
Click to expand...

It's not just weather. Tricky pin positions, for example, could have a significant impact on scoring and threfore PCC.


----------



## D-S (Oct 5, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Best 10 out of 20 would make it even more volatile. If you want to limit the pace of change then maybe best 5 or 6 out of 20 would target top end playing ability.

Fundamentally:
Old system: handicap based on potential
New sytem: handicap based on form
		
Click to expand...

I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, how current that form is depends on the frequency and proportion of golf played that is part of the body of evidence.
Also given the incredibly volatile performance levels of all golfers, especially higher handicappers, is this the correct basis to have as a handicapping measure in competitive ( i.e. playing for my money) club golf?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 5, 2022)

sunshine said:



			I haven't seen this at my club or in discussion with any friends at other clubs. Scores don't seem different from pre-WHS days. Seems to be a forum myth. If it is genuinely happening at your club you have a challenge that your committee need to address.
		
Click to expand...

The way the slope works, you'll find that golfers pre-War with higher handicaps now have several more shots to play with, in comparison to low handicappers, and most courses. Therefore, it is inevitable scores will be better than before. If they won with 45 points before, it could be 2 or 3 shots better now, in general.

Also as you say handicap is based more on form now, that also adds to it. Form can vary wildly for all golfers, particularly higher handicappers. If the system allows them to increase at a higher rate when golfers play badly, they will shoot better nett scores than they would have done pre WHS once they hit some form again. Simply because their handicap would have increased a bit more during the bad times


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 5, 2022)

sunshine said:



			I haven't seen this at my club or in discussion with any friends at other clubs. Scores don't seem different from pre-WHS days. Seems to be a forum myth. If it is genuinely happening at your club you have a challenge that your committee need to address.
		
Click to expand...

Just because it dosnt happen at yours “it’s a forum myth”
There are enough players on here to prove that’s not true.
So you think we’re lying.?

We have had 6 x59 and a 58 nett par 72 win comps since WHS.
You basically need 46 pts to get in the top three most stablefords.
It’s not just high handicappers either it’s guys who were off middle caps who have got several shots back.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 5, 2022)

'Several shots' back still doesnt explain it. For 58 nets and 52 points, thats 7 or 8 shots wrong. So WHS is not to blame for those scores.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 5, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			'Several shots' back still doesnt explain it. For 58nets and 52 points, that 7 or 8 shots wrong. So WHS is not to blame for those scored.
		
Click to expand...

I have stated there are other factors ( no rough etc) but WHS has made a significant contribution to these scores.
These are exceptions I agree over three years nearly but 46/47 pts is commonplace now.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 5, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			I have stated there are other factors ( no rough etc) but WHS has made a significant contribution to these scores.
These are exceptions I agree over three years nearly but 46/47 pts is commonplace now.
		
Click to expand...

By no rough, do you mean the CR and Slope are now wrong ? If so, then the club is at fault for not rerating it. Thats not the fault of WHS either.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 5, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Just because it dosnt happen at yours “it’s a forum myth”
There are enough players on here to prove that’s not true.
So you think we’re lying.?

We have had 6 x59 and a 58 nett par 72 win comps since WHS.
You basically need 46 pts to get in the top three most stablefords.
It’s not just high handicappers either it’s guys who were off middle caps who have got several shots back.
		
Click to expand...

What were those players' handicaps under CONGU?

When you say 'got several shots back' do you mean their index increased and how many is 'several'? 
Any change re CONGU handicap and Course Handicap is probably down to Slope of course.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 5, 2022)

rulefan said:



			What were those players' handicaps under CONGU?

When you say 'got several shots back' do you mean their index increased and how many is 'several'? 
Any change re CONGU handicap and Course Handicap is probably down to Slope of course.
		
Click to expand...

That will largely be the cause of what people seem to be seeing. Slope is part of WHS of course.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 5, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			That will largely be the cause of what people seem to be seeing. Slope is part of WHS of course.
		
Click to expand...

A course with a pretty average Slope (125) gives a player about 10% on their CH which reduces to 95% for the competition PH. A 40 Index will get 2 strokes. Gosh


----------



## Blob Jacket (Oct 5, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			By no rough, do you mean the CR and Slope are now wrong ? If so, then the club is at fault for not rerating it. Thats not the fault of WHS either.
		
Click to expand...

Surely we haven’t adopted a handicap system where every time the rough is grown up or cut down the course rating/slope should be different?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 5, 2022)

rulefan said:



			A course with a pretty average Slope (125) gives a player about 10% on their CH which reduces to 95% for the competition PH. A 40 Index will get 2 strokes. Gosh 

Click to expand...

So, 45 points becomes 47 points, thus a higher score than pre WHS?  Cheers.

And, as it allows quicker increases, it can also allow better scores once a player gets their mojo back. 

Many courses have slopes well.over 125 as well. My last course was relatively easy to.people (low CR), slope 133. Current course 141.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 5, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I think this pretty much sums it up.

The only problem is when players do not have sufficient cards in and their h/c is based on scores from 2-3 years ago, not a good guide of form. That is then up to clubs to manage that internally to keep comps legitimate.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, why it is that at my place to enter any club competition a member must have 6 scores on their record in the 12 months prior to date of entering.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 5, 2022)

rulefan said:



			What were those players' handicaps under CONGU?

When you say 'got several shots back' do you mean their index increased and how many is 'several'? 
Any change re CONGU handicap and Course Handicap is probably down to Slope of course.
		
Click to expand...

Most got a few shots back.
One guy went from 12 to 19 god knows how.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 5, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			By no rough, do you mean the CR and Slope are now wrong ? If so, then the club is at fault for not rerating it. Thats not the fault of WHS either.
		
Click to expand...

So scores going up is all the clubs fault and NOTHING to do with WHS.
Even though WHS quite clearly gave some golfers a number of shots back.
You might belive that but plenty don’t inc me.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 5, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Most got a few shots back.
		
Click to expand...

Are you talking HI or CH




			One guy went from 12 to 19 god knows how.
		
Click to expand...

_CONGU exact to Handicap Index or Course Handicap ?_


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 5, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Are you talking HI or CH


_CONGU exact to Handicap Index or Course Handicap ?_

Click to expand...

We only see the handicap he plays off on the results .
So CH .


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 5, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			So, 45 points becomes 47 points, thus a higher score than pre WHS?  Cheers.
		
Click to expand...

Not so fast. A course with a 125 Slope means the 40 was excessively handicapped by 2 shots in the past comoared to a scratch player. He wouldnt have scored 45. But 43. WHS just restores those two shots his UHC hc deprived him of for the same level of golf in both cases. Giving him a score under WHS of.....45.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 5, 2022)

Taking Fragger as an example..
His last UHS handicap was 22.4 on 15/10/20 so getting 22 shots
His first WHS Index was 22.5
When you calculate his course handicap, because of our slope being 138 from the Whites, he got 27 shots.
5 more than before for a general play cards and 4 more for a comp.
Within a couple of weeks he'd gone up a shot - so getting 5 or 6 shots more on the same course.
That's how a high handicappers good day of 41/42 points become 46/47 or more.
A number that I would have to shoot 2 or 3 under par gross to match


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Oct 5, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Taking Fragger as an example..
His last UHS handicap was 22.4 on 15/10/20 so getting 22 shots
His first WHS Index was 22.5
When you calculate his course handicap, because of our slope being 138 from the Whites, he got 27 shots.
5 more than before for a general play cards and 4 more for a comp.
Within a couple of weeks he'd gone up a shot - so getting 5 or 6 shots more on the same course.
That's how a high handicappers good day of 41/42 points become 46/47 or more.
A number that I would have to shoot 2 or 3 under par gross to match
		
Click to expand...


You making an example of me ?


----------



## Imurg (Oct 5, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			You making an example of me ? 

Click to expand...

Yep
But not in a bad way
Highlighting how many extra shots high handicappers got on the changeover and where these big scores can come from
If you'd manipulated your index you could have been getting 8 orm9 extra within a few weeks.
Not that I'd have let you but it wouldn't stop others doing it.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 5, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Taking Fragger as an example..
His last UHS handicap was 22.4 on 15/10/20 so getting 22 shots
His first WHS Index was 22.5
When you calculate his course handicap, because of our slope being 138 from the Whites, he got 27 shots.
5 more than before for a general play cards and 4 more for a comp.
Within a couple of weeks he'd gone up a shot - so getting 5 or 6 shots more on the same course.
That's how a high handicappers good day of 41/42 points become 46/47 or more.
A number that I would have to shoot 2 or 3 under par gross to match
		
Click to expand...

Someone will be along soon to tell you that’s got nothing to do with WHS.

What about matchplay.
It was already full difference but now the low golfer is giving more shots since WHS.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 5, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Yep
But not in a bad way
Highlighting how many extra shots high handicappers got on the changeover and where these big scores can come from
If you'd manipulated your index you could have been getting 8 orm9 extra within a few weeks.
Not that I'd have let you but it wouldn't stop others doing it.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but under the old system that wasn’t possible.
But some are in denial and just think because it’s not happening where they are it’s all a myth.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 5, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Taking Fragger as an example..
His last UHS handicap was 22.4 on 15/10/20 so getting 22 shots
His first WHS Index was 22.5
When you calculate his course handicap, because of our slope being 138 from the Whites, he got 27 shots.
5 more than before for a general play cards and 4 more for a comp.
Within a couple of weeks he'd gone up a shot - so getting 5 or 6 shots more on the same course.
That's how a high handicappers good day of 41/42 points become 46/47 or more.
A number that I would have to shoot 2 or 3 under par gross to match
		
Click to expand...

Not really. His 22.4 uhc was a playing 22 shots. Under WHS, he gets 26 shots. An increase of 4. And the 0.1 would have made a difference of a full shot under uhs. So not 5 or 6. And 138 slope is a very tough prospect for a 23 of old. He was giving you extra shots all those years. He deserves a win or two over you now!


----------



## Imurg (Oct 5, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes but under the old system that wasn’t possible.
But some are in denial and just think because it’s not happening where they are it’s all a myth.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair it's no happened at our place..not to the high 40s extent
There been a few low 40s scores (or equivalent gross ones) but that happened pre whs.
But some clubs are certainly experiencing it.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 5, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Not really. His 22.5 uhc was a playing 23 shots. Under WHS, he gets 26 shots. An increase of 3. Not 5 or 6. And 138 slope is a very tough prospect for a 23 of old. He was giving you extra shots all those years. He deserves a win or two over you now!
		
Click to expand...

He was 22.4 UHS....
His 1st WHS was 22.5 ...add the slope...hell, I've already done the maths
If you can't read it.......


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 5, 2022)

Imurg said:



			To be fair it's no happened at our place..not to the high 40s extent
There been a few low 40s scores (or equivalent gross ones) but that happened pre whs.
But some clubs are certainly experiencing it.
		
Click to expand...

At SR 138 that’s probably why.
Ours is 129 and high 40s is becoming what you need to have any chance.
It’s why our comp numbers have fallen imo.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 5, 2022)

Imurg said:



			He was 22.4 UHS....
His 1st WHS was 22.5 ...add the slope...hell, I've already done the maths
If you can't read it.......

Click to expand...

Yes, Iv corrected that. An increase of 4. Still not 5 or 6. And a 'point one' of old would have reduced that to one a three shot increase. 

The real point is though, he should have the extra 4 shots. And his 41 deserved to be 45 relative to the field. The 41 was the 'wrong' score. The 45 is the score his golf, relative to his competitors, deserved.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 5, 2022)

Imurg said:



			He was 22.4 UHS....
His 1st WHS was 22.5 ...add the slope...hell, I've already done the maths
If you can't read it.......

Click to expand...

Check your maths though. 🙄


----------



## rulefan (Oct 5, 2022)

It seems some ex EGU players don't really understand the purpose of Slope. Apart from the old EGU (men) , every country in the world, including all GB&I, were rating courses for slope for years prior to WHS. The rest of GB&I (ie CONGU) couldn't use it because of the EGU. But it was available to overseas players if the course had kept the slope rating.
England men invented the SSS (Standard* Scratch* Score) ignoring all players except those on scratch.


----------



## Smagsmith (Oct 6, 2022)

We have 7 net major (board) comps for singles. We have divisions (1= 0-16, 2= 16+).
The overall winner and therefore gets their name on the board is the best net score from either division. There are also divisional prizes. This year, every net major has come from div 2. The average winning handicap is 22 and the average score to net par is -6.
Needless to say the div 1 players are not happy.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 6, 2022)

Smagsmith said:



			We have 7 net major (board) comps for singles. We have divisions (1= 0-16, 2= 16+).
The overall winner and therefore gets their name on the board is the best net score from either division. There are also divisional prizes. This year, every net major has come from div 2. The average winning handicap is 22 and the average score to net par is -6.
Needless to say the div 1 players are not happy.
		
Click to expand...

Would you say your course is easy?


----------



## D-S (Oct 6, 2022)

I don’t understand in a competition where there is only one overall winner that you can have divisions. 
Surely, in let’s say the October Medal, there is a Div 1 winner and a Div 2 winner, this is the purpose of divisions i.e.to divide the field into groups of similar handicaps and players competing against players in their division not against those in other divisions. 
If it is currently a single cup competition why not introduce an extra cup for Div 2.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 6, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Would you say your course is easy?
		
Click to expand...

Easy/difficult is relative, and perception of such is subjective. The required information (as always) is course and slope ratings, and pars - without these details it's impossible to relate scores to handicapping.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Easy/difficult is relative, and perception of such is subjective. The required information (as always) is course and slope ratings, and pars - without these details it's impossible to relate scores to handicapping.
		
Click to expand...

And I think we've also proved that actually a course that plays easy can be a factor in high scoring - as per my course.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 6, 2022)

We hav


Bdill93 said:



			And I think we've also proved that actually a course that plays easy can be a factor in high scoring - as per my course.
		
Click to expand...

We have  ??? When ?
Course difficulty should not affect scoring. If CR and Slope are correct.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 6, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			IT shouldnt. Handicapped competitions arent about skill  They are about performance on the day relative to your hc.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but WHS is now, according to the actual trackabale statistics, favouring disproportianately, the higher handicaps.


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 6, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			We hav

We have  ??? When ?
Course difficulty should not affect scoring. *If CR and Slope are correct.*

Click to expand...

Answered your own question there! 

Somebody told me about another course - I can't remember which course it was and I am hazy on the details admittedly, but the jist of it was that they got the course/slope rating reviewer guys to come back twice because they weren't happy with the initial ratings. It was something along the lines of; the first time they came on a summer's morning, breezed around it and gave it a low rating. The course owners invited them back one afternoon, plied them with drinks and a lunch while the greenkeepers put all the hardest pin positions out. Lo and behold, the new rating was a lot higher.

Long story short - course and slope ratings can be wide of the mark.


----------



## D-S (Oct 6, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Answered your own question there!

Somebody told me about another course - I can't remember which course it was and I am hazy on the details admittedly, but the jist of it was that they got the course/slope rating reviewer guys to come back twice because they weren't happy with the initial ratings. It was something along the lines of; the first time they came on a summer's morning, breezed around it and gave it a low rating. The course owners invited them back one afternoon, plied them with drinks and a lunch while the greenkeepers put all the hardest pin positions out. Lo and behold, the new rating was a lot higher.

Long story short - course and slope ratings can be wide of the mark.
		
Click to expand...

As someone who has been part of a course rating team your anecdote doesn’t ring true at all, if anything it just demeans the work of volunteers without whom you would either be paying a lot more or have no system.
The process is not simple but it is relatively straightforward, very consistent and has defined measurements at its core. The knowledge, work and experience of the lead raters is remarkable.
Pin positions, drinks and lunch have nothing to do with it


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 6, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Answered your own question there!

Somebody told me about another course - I can't remember which course it was and I am hazy on the details admittedly, but the jist of it was that they got the course/slope rating reviewer guys to come back twice because they weren't happy with the initial ratings. It was something along the lines of; the first time they came on a summer's morning, breezed around it and gave it a low rating. The course owners invited them back one afternoon, plied them with drinks and a lunch while the greenkeepers put all the hardest pin positions out. Lo and behold, the new rating was a lot higher.

Long story short - course and slope ratings can be wide of the mark.
		
Click to expand...




D-S said:



			As someone who has been part of a course rating team your anecdote doesn’t ring true at all, if anything it just demeans the work of volunteers without whom you would either be paying a lot more or have no system.
The process is not simple but it is relatively straightforward, very consistent and has defined measurements at its core. The knowledge, work and experience of the lead raters is remarkable.
Pin positions, drinks and lunch have nothing to do with it
		
Click to expand...

It sounds like a classic apocryphal story.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 6, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Yep


If you'd manipulated your index you could have been getting 8 orm9 extra within a few weeks.
.
		
Click to expand...

Even back at the start of using the WHS that would not have been possible 
(as already said the maximum increase is 5 shots in a rolling calendar year).


----------



## Imurg (Oct 6, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			Even back at the start of using the WHS that would not have been possible
(as already said the maximum increase is 5 shots in a rolling calendar year).
		
Click to expand...

5 of the shots came from the transition.....his index was virtually the same as his old handicap but the addition of slope gave him 4 or 5 more.
A bit of manipulation and it wouldn't be tricky to get that to 9...the cap can't apply until after transition otherwise he wouldn't have gone up in the following few weeks.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 6, 2022)

Imurg said:



			5 of the shots came from the transition.....his index was virtually the same as his old handicap but the addition of slope gave him 4 or 5 more.
A bit of manipulation and it wouldn't be tricky to get that to 9...the cap can't apply until after transition otherwise he wouldn't have gone up in the following few weeks.
		
Click to expand...

 understood


----------



## Captain_Black. (Oct 6, 2022)

Smagsmith said:



			We have 7 net major (board) comps for singles. We have divisions (1= 0-16, 2= 16+).
The overall winner and therefore gets their name on the board is the best net score from either division. There are also divisional prizes. This year, every net major has come from div 2. The average winning handicap is 22 and the average score to net par is -6.
Needless to say the div 1 players are not happy.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly my point in my original post.
Also true at my club & I have sent in a report to our h/c secretary to that effect.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 6, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Answered your own question there!

Somebody told me about another course - I can't remember which course it was and I am hazy on the details admittedly, but the jist of it was that they got the course/slope rating reviewer guys to come back twice because they weren't happy with the initial ratings. It was something along the lines of; the first time they came on a summer's morning, breezed around it and gave it a low rating. The course owners invited them back one afternoon, plied them with drinks and a lunch while the greenkeepers put all the hardest pin positions out. Lo and behold, the new rating was a lot higher.

Long story short - course and slope ratings can be wide of the mark.
		
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense.

Pin positions don't form part of the rating procedure. The size, surface and contours of the green do.
Nor does the weather on the day rating is done.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 6, 2022)

Imurg said:



			5 of the shots came from the transition.....his index was virtually the same as his old handicap but the addition of slope gave him 4 or 5 more.
		
Click to expand...

And that is what Slope is for.


----------



## D-S (Oct 6, 2022)

rulefan said:



			And that is what Slope is for.
		
Click to expand...

I am sure if the early WHS presentations/introductions had said that ”we don’t believe the right balance of handicaps have been winning competition under the system that we have championed for the past many years, so we are introducing a system that will give higher handicappers 2,3 or 4 more shots in singles, team, matchplay and strokeplay competitions so they will win more competitions“ there might have been more kickback. 
I fully understand the rationale behind slope calculation but was certainly not told ‘that is what Slope is for’. If average slope ratings for UK courses was in the 110-115 area then this would not have been an issue but when they turned out to be 125-130 this represents a significant increase in shots obviously for higher handicappers.
I simply don’t seem to remember this being highlighted in the various resources given to clubs before transition.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 6, 2022)

D-S said:



			I am sure if the early WHS presentations/introductions had said that ”we don’t believe the right balance of handicaps have been winning competition under the system that we have championed for the past many years, so we are introducing a system that will give higher handicappers 2,3 or 4 more shots in singles, team, matchplay and strokeplay competitions so they will win more competitions“ there might have been more kickback. 
I fully understand the rationale behind slope calculation but was certainly not told ‘that is what Slope is for’. If average slope ratings for UK courses was in the 110-115 area then this would not have been an issue but when they turned out to be 125-130 this represents a significant increase in shots obviously for higher handicappers.
I simply don’t seem to remember this being highlighted in the various resources given to clubs before transition.
		
Click to expand...

Fair point. I never remember there being many complaints that higher handicappers didn't win enough competitions. Seriously, does anyone remember hearing this. The old system had been about for a long time, yet I never remember CONGU saying the system was less than perfect as it favoured low handicappers. If this was seriously a flaw, then it should have been at the forefront of WHS publicity, as you say. It said relative difficulty from course to course would be taken into account, but it stayed away from saying it will ultimately, at most courses, give higher handicappers a bit more help than before.

Potential concern is that, I don't feel higher handicappers had really ever been put off playing golf (especially once max handicap.increased pre WHS) because they felt the system let them down. Just reading various posts, and talk amongst some at clubs (especially my old club with many very high handicappers), many low handicappers seem less interested in playing competitive golf. At my old club, the captain at the time was not happy with it (with many scores close to 50 points), to the point he has now quit golf and taking up other things. He was a keen golfer pre WHS.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 6, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes, but WHS is now, according to the actual trackabale statistics, favouring disproportianately, the higher handicaps.
		
Click to expand...

Source of this data?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Source of this data?
		
Click to expand...

Further up the page from HDID, not surprised you missed it as it contradicts your stance.


https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

It supports my stance, so I think we are agreeing - solid proof there - WHS is much fairer than UHS.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			It supports my stance, so I think we are agreeing - solid proof there - WHS is much fairer than UHS.
		
Click to expand...

It doesn't support your stance, it supports mine, that higher handicaps are wining more than they "should", so one unfair system has been replaced by another unfair system, except now if you're bad at golf you're more likely to win, than if you're a better golfer


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			It doesn't support your stance, it supports mine, that higher handicaps are wining more than they "should", so one unfair system has been replaced by another unfair system, except now if you're bad at golf you're more likely to win, than if you're a better golfer
		
Click to expand...

Yes it’s a classic case of (two wrongs making a wrong) but some people think that’s ok.
If low men had an advantage in the past just level it up .
It wasn’t their fault we don’t make the rules.
Giving high cappers an advantage goes against handicapping principles surley.


----------



## Slab (Oct 7, 2022)

I heard at the practice range this morning that a fella just picked up a 52 point stableford win playing off 25 handicap. At the very least he'll be on everyone's radar now


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 7, 2022)

Slab said:



			I heard at the practice range this morning that a fella just picked up a 52 point stableford win playing off 25 handicap. At the very least he'll be on everyone's radar now
		
Click to expand...

Someone will be along soon to tell you these scores are a “ myth”

One of the problems with scores like this is if he puts 20 cards in over the winter he can get rid of that score on his record ,ready and able to do it again at the start of the season.


----------



## Slab (Oct 7, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Someone will be along soon to tell you these scores are a “ myth”
		
Click to expand...

I’m playing in an annual individual Open comp tomorrow, last year it was won with mid 40’s points by a fella off 24’ish handicap. This year, same comp is medal scoring


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 7, 2022)

D-S said:



			I fully understand the rationale behind slope calculation but was certainly not told ‘that is what Slope is for’. If average slope ratings for UK courses was in the 110-115 area then this would not have been an issue but when they turned out to be 125-130 this represents a significant increase in shots obviously for higher handicappers.
.
		
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is correct, as slope is used to determine a players handicap index, as well as how many strokes he might get on any given course.

If the slope of courses was closer to 113, then players differentials, which make up their best 8 from 20 scores, would be naturally higher, which means their indexes would be higher in the first place.

Within one course...the slope used to calculate the shots due, is therefore cancelled out by the effect of the slope determining a players handicap index in the first place.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 7, 2022)

Slab said:



			I’m playing in an annual individual Open comp tomorrow, last year it was won with mid 40’s points by a fella off 24’ish handicap. This year, same comp is medal scoring 

Click to expand...

52 points though .
Even with a couple of bad holes he would probably win a medal with a score like that.
He can’t have had any blobs I would assume.


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Further up the page from HDID, not surprised you missed it as it contradicts your stance.


https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

Click to expand...

That very first chart pretty much mimics the scoring data that I provided earlier on!!! Maybe the chnages in the HDID report are a little bit more extreme than what I saw at my own club but the general trend is pretty much the same....low handicappers not scoring quite so well and high handicappers scoring better.

Maybe it is not the slope that is the issue (assuming that there is an issue)....maybe it's the 95% singles allowance....maybe 90% would balance things up better.


----------



## Slab (Oct 7, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			52 points though .
Even with a couple of bad holes he would probably win a medal with a score like that.
*He can’t have had any blobs I would assume.*

Click to expand...

Jeez I actually hope he did!


----------



## Backache (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Further up the page from HDID, not surprised you missed it as it contradicts your stance.


https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

Click to expand...

One thing the data does not show is the variance around the mean. If it is higher for high handicappers than for low ones they will win a disproportionate number of events.
That will also finish poorly more often but as there is not really any opprobrium for poor finishes and rewards for good ones it would be unfair to those with low variance.


----------



## LincolnShep (Oct 7, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Someone will be along soon to tell you these scores are a “ myth”.
		
Click to expand...

Is that a dig at me, just because I said it isn't happening at my club?  I never suggested that what you said was not true.  I have no reason to doubt you.  If you say that every month you're seeing 50+ points then I believe you, why wouldn't I?


----------



## Slab (Oct 7, 2022)

Does anyone have an example of a course where the slope is rated around 113 off the whites/back tees? I'm curious what such a course looks like 

(113 rating is the neutral Slope Rating, or a course with a 'standard' playing difficulty)


----------



## BiMGuy (Oct 7, 2022)

Slab said:



			Does anyone have an example of a course where the slope is rated around 113 off the whites/back tees? I'm curious what such a course looks like

(113 rating is the neutral Slope Rating, or a course with a 'standard' playing difficulty)
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Captain_Black. (Oct 7, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Someone will be along soon to tell you these scores are a “ myth”

One of the problems with scores like this is if he puts 20 cards in over the winter he can get rid of that score on his record ,ready and able to do it again at the start of the season.
		
Click to expand...

That is exactly what is happening.
Under the old system it would take lots more bad scores to increase a h/c.
Now h/c's can be manipulated in quite a short space of time.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 7, 2022)

Slab said:



			Does anyone have an example of a course where the slope is rated around 113 off the whites/back tees? I'm curious what such a course looks like

(113 rating is the neutral Slope Rating, or a course with a 'standard' playing difficulty)
		
Click to expand...

Insch GC is 113 for the white tees


----------



## Orikoru (Oct 7, 2022)

Slab said:



			Does anyone have an example of a course where the slope is rated around 113 off the whites/back tees? I'm curious what such a course looks like

(113 rating is the neutral Slope Rating, or a course with a 'standard' playing difficulty)
		
Click to expand...

My course is 115 off the whites now so it's pretty close.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			My course is 115 off the whites now so it's pretty close.
		
Click to expand...

That is only because golfers are not penalised for hitting the ball out of bounds


----------



## Neilds (Oct 7, 2022)

For all those posters who are stating that higher handicaps are winning disproportionate amounts/more than they should please show me where it is laid down that you can only win competitions when you have a handicap lower than XX?

And before anyone tries posting stats, they should remember that you can prove more than one argument with the same set of numbers


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 7, 2022)

Neilds said:



			For all those posters who are stating that higher handicaps are winning disproportionate amounts/more than they should please show me where it is laid down that you can only win competitions when you have a handicap lower than XX?

And before anyone tries posting stats, they should remember that you can prove more than one argument with the same set of numbers 

Click to expand...

The stats have been posted twice now (at least). And no its a simple calculation, x% of players should win x% of the time if the handicap system is equitable. 

Nobody is saying "you can only win if...", we're saying it should be fair, not biased, and there is a clear bias showing.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			It doesn't support your stance, it supports mine, that* higher handicaps are wining more than they "should"*, so one unfair system has been replaced by another unfair system, except now if you're bad at golf you're more likely to win, than if you're a better golfer
		
Click to expand...

*Data Reveals World Handicap System Is Levelling Playing Field*
From your link


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



*Data Reveals World Handicap System Is Levelling Playing Field*
From your link
		
Click to expand...

See when you only read headlines......

From my link: 

*The Category 1 players might not like it but, going by these stats, any disadvantage they now have is far less than the advantage they had under the old system.*


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			The stats have been posted twice now (at least). And no its a simple calculation, x% of players should win x% of the time if the handicap system is equitable.

Nobody is saying "you can only win if...", we're saying it should be fair, not biased, and there is a clear bias showing.
		
Click to expand...

Granted. But when the data is showing that the playing field has significantly levelled, even if still not perfect, moving in the right direction should not justify claims that whs is not working, or out with the torches and pitchforks for high handicappers.
It has IMPROVED. Any disquiet should be less than whatever was there before whs.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			See when you only read headlines......

From my link:

*The Category 1 players might not like it but, going by these stats, any disadvantage they now have is far less than the advantage they had under the old system.*

Click to expand...

So I think we call all agree, such a big improvement can be described as nothing but as a good step. Golfers from plus 10 to -54 are united : whs better than Congu/UHS.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			See when you only read headlines......

From my link:

*The Category 1 players might not like it but, going by these stats, any disadvantage they now have is far less than the advantage they had under the old system.*[/QUOTE]
Why should an improvement mean it is not working?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			So I think we call all agree, such a big improvement can be described as nothing but as a good step. Golfers from plus 10 to -54 are united : whs better than Congu/UHS.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, clearly everyone has been agreeing with you throuhgout this thread. Christ almighty, WHS was heralded as "fixing" the handicap system, all they've done is create a new error, and as I said further up, have actually given an advantage to duffers. Imagine creating a system where being bad at something is more advantageous than being good at it? Nobody can surely agree with that, yourself excepted obviously.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes, clearly everyone has been agreeing with you throuhgout this thread. Christ almighty, WHS was heralded as "fixing" the handicap system, all they've done is create a new error, and as I said further up, have actually given an advantage to duffers. Imagine creating a system where being bad at something is more advantageous than being good at it? Nobody can surely agree with that, yourself excepted obviously.
		
Click to expand...

The issue of good or bad is completely irrelevant to this debate. Maybe that is a fundamental mistake you and others are making. We are talking about handicap competition. Absolute scores, or the level of the golfer do not apply. Only scores relative to that handicap. Low handicap golfers have no special status in hc competition. But some seem to think the should - a sort of hybrid - handicaps, but add in a bit of gross too. That is not the premise of handicap golf.


----------



## BiMGuy (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes, clearly everyone has been agreeing with you throuhgout this thread. Christ almighty, WHS was heralded as "fixing" the handicap system, all they've done is create a new error, and as I said further up, have actually given an advantage to duffers. Imagine creating a system where being bad at something is more advantageous than being good at it? Nobody can surely agree with that, yourself excepted obviously.
		
Click to expand...

I genuinely cannot get my head round why the HC system doesn’t and shouldn’t favour better players. The whole point of golf is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest shots. 

I suppose if you play with the purpose of getting your name on a wall somewhere rather than shooting the best score you can. The new system will suit keeping your HC artificially inflated more than the old system.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 7, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			I genuinely cannot get my head round why the HC system doesn’t and shouldn’t favour better players. The whole point of golf is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest shots.

I suppose if you play with the purpose of getting your name on a wall somewhere rather than shooting the best score you can. The new system will suit keeping your HC artificially inflated more than the old system.
		
Click to expand...

Because the HC system is all about levelling.

Scratch golf is about identifying the better players…and I am sure you know that.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			I genuinely cannot get my head round why the HC system doesn’t and shouldn’t favour better players. The whole point of golf is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest shots.

I suppose if you play with the purpose of getting your name on a wall somewhere rather than shooting the best score you can. The new system will suit keeping your HC artificially inflated more than the old system.
		
Click to expand...

I think we have the core of the problem here, and the same as Banchory. Its HANDICAP golf. All equal. The plus 5 man gets no honour for being a +5 in a handicap comp. For that, he plays gross or scratch golf competitions. But in handicap comps, he is the same as the 54 man.
Anyone truly believing what you are saying BiMGuy, surely wouldnt be interrested in hc golf comps anyway ? Play scratch competitions only. Fewest shots wins. Simple.
And leave the hc comps to those of us who prefer that. Rather than imposing a twisted, handicaps....but not quite.


----------



## D-S (Oct 7, 2022)

Everything that I heard or had presented to me and that I can currently still see on websites about the introduction of WHS talked about having a new portable global handicap, the ease of recording scores and a system that was quicker to respond to form. The only talk of ‘levelling’ was between harder and easier courses. Can someone can point me in the direction of information distributed during the transition that said or even inferred “UHS is fundamentally flawed and is biased in favour of better players, so we are going to introduce a system that reverses this and, if anything, will favour the higher handicappers”?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			I think we have the core of the problem here, and the same as Banchory. Its HANDICAP golf. All equal. The plus 5 man gets no honour for being a +5 in a handicap comp. For that, he plays gross or scratch golf competitions. But in handicap comps, he is the same as the 54 man.
Anyone truly believing what you are saying BiMGuy, surely wouldnt be interrested in hc golf comps anyway ? Play scratch competitions only. Fewest shots wins. Simple.
And leave the hc comps to those of us who prefer that. Rather than imposing a twisted, handicaps....but not quite.
		
Click to expand...

Handicap golf can never really be deemed "fair"

In an ideal world, everybody in a competition has many scores on their record, from fairly recent rounds of golf, and you could then say their handicap is a fair reflection of those scores. Then, perhaps, handicap competitions would be "fair".

However, not 100% of golfers in a field will fit this category. You will always get a certain portion of golfers who have scope to improve, both high and low handicappers. If you have enough of them, then the probability in one of these golfers winning a competition is much higher than a steady golfer, especially a steady low handicapper. And, the chances favour the higher handicappers of those guys improving, as they have more scope to improve.

So, if you are a 40 handicapper who has loads of scores on your record, your chances are not really significantly better than anyone else's unless something changes to cause improvement. Once a high handicapper goes on that journey of improvement, then they are likely to enjoy a lot of success on that ride. However, once they plateau to where their ability is likely to take them, then their chances of winning competitions will reduce significantly again, to the point they are no more likely to win a comp compared to when they were a genuine high handicapper (before the improvement began)

That is probably what is disheartening to most low handicappers. Nearly all will have started with a much higher handicapper, and now they have reached their ability feel they are in no better position than before they started that journey of improvement. Maybe it feels like a waste of time?

For these low handicappers, I don't believe most of them think high handicappers should not be able to win competitions. Rather, I think that they believe that 1) a high handicapper should earn that handicap, by having enough scores to give more confidence that they require such a handicap advantage in competitive golf; and 2) that there is even a marginal factor to slightly favour the lower handicappers, so that high handicappers have more incentive to improve, and thus increase their chances in being successful. Important to highlight this is only a marginal factor, not complete removal of handicap so we just go to the extreme and have scratch golf for everyone. So, perhaps that would mean reducing the 95% adjustment in singles to 90% (example only, this is not a definitive proposal)


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

D-S said:



			Everything that I heard or had presented to me and that I can currently still see on websites about the introduction of WHS talked about having a new portable global handicap, the ease of recording scores and a system that was quicker to respond to form. The only talk of ‘levelling’ was between harder and easier courses. Can someone can point me in the direction of information distributed during the transition that said or even inferred “UHS is fundamentally flawed and is biased in favour of better players, so we are going to introduce a system that reverses this and, if anything, will favour the higher handicappers”?
		
Click to expand...

There was nothing I believe. However, now that WHS has established, and this has been a criticism of it, it is quite simple to say "WHS is right, UHS was wrong, so there".


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			I think we have the core of the problem here, and the same as Banchory. Its HANDICAP golf. *All equal.* The plus 5 man gets no honour for being a +5 in a handicap comp. For that, he plays gross or scratch golf competitions. But in handicap comps, he is the same as the 54 man.
Anyone truly believing what you are saying BiMGuy, surely wouldnt be interrested in hc golf comps anyway ? Play scratch competitions only. Fewest shots wins. Simple.
And leave the hc comps to those of us who prefer that. Rather than imposing a twisted, handicaps....but not quite.
		
Click to expand...

Now you're getting it, but we're not all equal, duffers are being unequally rewarded.

I fully expect the first review to have a tweak that will address this, most likely as someone said above, making the allowance maybe 90%, with 4BBB getting a further equivalent % cut as well


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 7, 2022)

LincolnShep said:



			Is that a dig at me, just because I said it isn't happening at my club?  I never suggested that what you said was not true.  I have no reason to doubt you.  If you say that every month you're seeing 50+ points then I believe you, why wouldn't I?
		
Click to expand...

No it wasn’t it was another lad
 “A forum myth “ Is what he called it.
If it’s not happening at yours your lucky.
But why question the guys who say it is happening at their club with “myth” if you have no experience of it.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 7, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			I genuinely cannot get my head round why the HC system doesn’t and shouldn’t favour better players. The whole point of golf is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest shots.

I suppose if you play with the purpose of getting your name on a wall somewhere rather than shooting the best score you can. The new system will suit keeping your HC artificially inflated more than the old system.
		
Click to expand...

I can’t get my head around why ANYBODY should have an advantage.
If low men were better off under UHS that’s the rule makers fault not the golfers.
They had the chance to make it even for everyone .
But have given a section of players an advantage WHY.
Just make it even for us all.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Further up the page from HDID, not surprised you missed it as it contradicts your stance.


https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

Click to expand...

I've just read through this again (only glanced at the graph before). Unless I am misinterpreting it, this is scary.

The graph appears to show the average Stableford score for each category of golfer. This is now fairly balanced, but before WHS the average score was better for lower handicappers.

But surely you'd expect the average score to be better for lower handicappers, as their bad scores are not as bad. If all players now get a similar average score, it is going to mean that high handicappers get even higher scores on their best days


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 7, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I've just read through this again (only glanced at the graph before). Unless I am misinterpreting it, this is scary.

The graph appears to show the average Stableford score for each category of golfer. This is now fairly balanced, but before WHS the average score was better for lower handicappers.

But surely you'd expect the average score to be better for lower handicappers, as their bad scores are not as bad. If all players now get a similar average score, it is going to mean that high handicappers get even higher scores on their best days
		
Click to expand...

My personal experience of very high scores it’s not very high cappers who are doing it.
It’s the middle guys who have gained a few shots back under WHS then shoot the lights out on their day.
But we’re getting a bit lost in high vs low men argument.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			My personal experience of very high scores it’s not very high cappers who are doing it.
It’s the middle guys who have gained a few shots back under WHS then shoot the lights out on their day.
But we’re getting a bit lost in high vs low men argument.
		
Click to expand...

Well, WHS also definitely helps the inconsistent compared to the consistent. From a personal level, that has definitely worked to my advantage, although whether it should is another fair argument. My Index was as low as 6.6 in Sep 2021 and was up to 10.3 in Apr 2022 (bearing in mind we could not submit scores between Nov-Apr). So, my course handicap went from 8 to 13. Back down to 8.2 Index now, with some minor fluctuations in between. But, when I get myself out of a bad spell, then I'm sure I can shoot better scores than guys that just submit very consistent scores.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 7, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Well, WHS also definitely helps the inconsistent compared to the consistent. From a personal level, that has definitely worked to my advantage, although whether it should is another fair argument. My Index was as low as 6.6 in Sep 2021 and was up to 10.3 in Apr 2022 (bearing in mind we could not submit scores between Nov-Apr). So, my course handicap went from 8 to 13. Back down to 8.2 Index now, with some minor fluctuations in between. But, when I get myself out of a bad spell, then I'm sure I can shoot better scores than guys that just submit very consistent scores.
		
Click to expand...

Yes a very similar thing for me.
I was 5.6 and went up to 8.7. ( in my defence I had surgery on my wrist )
But even at that higher HI I could never shoot 50+ points
The best I have ever shot in 40yrs playing is 44 pts with a 68 gross.
So when I see 48/49/50 pts now it just makes me laugh.
We have started looking for opens instead of playing in stableford comps at our home course.
That’s a sad reflection on the system imo.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 7, 2022)

Slab said:



			Does anyone have an example of a course where the slope is rated around 113 off the whites/back tees? I'm curious what such a course looks like

(113 rating is the neutral Slope Rating, or a course with a 'standard' playing difficulty)
		
Click to expand...

Our 9 hole whites only is 114 course rating 65.2
The same course played as 18 is white out yellow home 112 CR 64.5


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes a very similar thing for me.
I was 5.6 and went up to 8.7. ( in my defence I had surgery on my wrist )
But even at that higher HI I could never shoot 50+ points
The best I have ever shot in 40yrs playing is 44 pts with a 68 gross.
So when I see 48/49/50 pts now it just makes me laugh.
We have started looking for opens instead of playing in stableford comps at our home course.
That’s a sad reflection on the system imo.
		
Click to expand...

It makes you wonder why these mid handicappers can shoot up to 50 points. Assuming CR is not massively below Par, if any regular golfers can shoot this score after getting a few shots back, it implies their lowest handicap never even reflected their "ability". They may only get a max of 5-6 shots back on their course handicap generally, so if they are shooting 50 points once they get all those shots back, they'd have still been capable of shooting well into the 40's at their lowest handicap.

Their low handicap may never reflect their "potential" if they are hugely inconsistent, and so even when they are at that low handicap, there are still several pretty poor scores within their top 8 bring that Index up. Or, they are intentionally submitting poor scores once it is obvious after so many holes they will not win something that round (or they mentally collapse and give up)


----------



## rulefan (Oct 7, 2022)

D-S said:



			Everything that I heard or had presented to me and that I can currently still see on websites about the introduction of WHS talked about having a new portable global handicap, the ease of recording scores and a system that was quicker to respond to form. The only talk of ‘levelling’ was between harder and easier courses. Can someone can point me in the direction of information distributed during the transition that said or even inferred “UHS is fundamentally flawed and is biased in favour of better players, so we are going to introduce a system that reverses this and, if anything, will favour the higher handicappers”?
		
Click to expand...

'You need to read the 'Myths & Misconceptions' reports that used to be on the old CONGU site.
WHS does not favour higher handicappers. It simply balances thing (nearly).


----------



## rulefan (Oct 7, 2022)

Slab said:



			Does anyone have an example of a course where the slope is rated around 113 off the whites/back tees? I'm curious what such a course looks like

(113 rating is the neutral Slope Rating, or a course with a 'standard' playing difficulty)
		
Click to expand...

It's interesting that all the ones reported are relatively short courses which suggests that more players will reach the green in regulation. Length being a major factor in CR.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			'You need to read the 'Myths & Misconceptions' reports that used to be on the old CONGU site.
WHS does not favour higher handicappers. It simply balances thing (nearly).
		
Click to expand...

Does it balance the average stableford score (or nett score relative to CR) for ALL scores submitted (which is what HDID seems to show)?  Or does it balance the average winning score?


----------



## D-S (Oct 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			'You need to read the 'Myths & Misconceptions' reports that used to be on the old CONGU site.
WHS does not favour higher handicappers. It simply balances thing (nearly).
		
Click to expand...

So if this was a common problem under UHS why on earth wasn’t it addressed?
Also I seem to recall that this was produced to justify the move to 100% from 75% allowance in singles matchplay, so at least they had the courage of their convictions about that - obviously not so much with low handicappers winning ‘all’ the strokeplay tournaments apparently.


----------



## IanM (Oct 7, 2022)

The fact it's called Myths and Misconceptions shows you the culture, the lack of customer focus and self awareness of those who produced it.

If your stakeholders don't understand something,  you need to look at your comms and engagement activities.


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 7, 2022)

So...back in post 215 I posted some data relating to a set of comps played at my place pre/post WHS implementation.

A few posts back I made the off the cuff remark that, perhaps 90% might be a more appropriate allowance for an individual strokeplay allowance. Following that thought, I tried to put some approximation together as to what scoring and finishing positions might look like if 90% was the allowance.

Now....what I did was pretty rudimentary and I do not hold it up to be a cohesive statistical analysis...in order for it to have been anywhere near valid I'd have had to go through every individuals hole by hole scores* to determine what their stableford score would have been if their playing handicap was 90% of their course handicap instead of 95%....so....have some salt handy for what I'm about to present 

So what I did was, for the comp scores in 2021 and 2022 I recalculated every players playing handicap as though they only got 90% (so divided the old PH by 0.95 to get back to their Course Handicap and then multiplied by 0.9....did not do any rounding between calcs). Where players then had a reduction in their whole number playing handicap I then reduced their Stableford score by the same amount to simulate a loss of shots. Now obviously this makes crass assumptions about players not having blobs on the holes where I've reduced their handicaps - revert back to * to see my previous disclaimer around this point and then grab yourself some more salt if you are so inclined.

What I found was that...

yes there was the expected reduction in the average handicap of the field
yes there were reductions in the average winning score and the average scores of those in positions 2-5 and 6-10
yes there were reductions in the handicaps of the winners and those finishing in the various places....largely this was just a mere 1-2 shots but in the case of the average winning handicap in 2022 it reduced from 25.4 when using 95% to 20.3 when using 90%

Pretty much all the above was predictable...folks have fewer shots...they score less, so all the numbers should go down...no rocket science involved there.

The drop of the average winning handicap in 2022 is quite significant and is obviously down to one or more higher handicappers who would not have won comps if 90% was being used.

There were marginal changes to the entry proportions of the various groups....no doubt caused by the players on the boundaries (15,22-23 and 29-30) dropping down into a lower group.

Looking at the average scores of the various handicap groups...

no change at all in the 1-7...they are not affected by any change from 95 to 90%
The three groups covering 8-28 however see typically around a 0.7 to 1-2 shot reduction
But the >28 cappers are suddenly 2.5 to 3.6 shots lower than they were.

So...how did all this translate into the relative finishing positions?

well....for the folks in handicap categories covering 8-28 it actually made sod all of sod all difference....just one or two positions in each group. For the lower handicaps (1-7) there was a consistent improvement of their average finishing position by 3 places. For the 28 cappers things were noticeably worse...typically finishing 13-15 places lower than they did using 95%.

So...putting aside the "high level nature" of this analysis I would say that a change from 95-90% allowance for an individual stableford comp would make an insignificant difference for the vast majority of golfers in terms of where they finished...low guys would benefit very slightly, very high players would be affected proportionally more.

If anything is demonstrated by this, it is the very delicate nature of trying to balance the allocation of shots so things are fair for all....what look like small changes on the surface can have significant effects on scoring patterns and the relative fairness of the handicapping system. I am absolutely sure that statisticians with far more knowledge than I or any of us, are analysing similar data and trying to see if there is anything hat can be done to tweak things.

Another thing....I beleive that the scoring/finishing patterns will be totally different for medal play as opposed Stableford. The higher handicappers inconsistency will be far more exposed in the more rigorous format of the game. Maybe 90% might be relevant for Stableford and some other % might be appropriate for medal?

Anyway....I hope your pile of salt hasn't gotten too big!!!! A couple of screenshots of the data and chart showing verage finishing positions for you to peruse...


----------



## Backache (Oct 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			'You need to read the 'Myths & Misconceptions' reports that used to be on the old CONGU site.
WHS does not favour higher handicappers. It simply balances thing (nearly).
		
Click to expand...

With the greatest respect if it's a historical document about the planned change it is unlikely to address the concerns of those who are concerned about what the effect has been.


----------



## Neilds (Oct 7, 2022)

Just to throw another possibility on why ‘high handicappers’ are winning all the comps, could it be because all the single figure players are not entering the comps, or NR’ing to protect their handicaps so they can enter opens, play county teams, etc?
Handicap ‘manipulation’ can be done by all 🤔


----------



## wjemather (Oct 7, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Just to throw another possibility on why ‘high handicappers’ are winning all the comps, could it be because all the single figure players are not entering the comps, or NR’ing to protect their handicaps so they can enter opens, play county teams, etc?
Handicap ‘manipulation’ can be done by all 🤔
		
Click to expand...

Not manipulation, but there is no doubt that some low handicappers who used to enter regular comps (prior to WHS) do so less frequently, choosing to submit GP scores instead - of course, this was never an option under UHS.
And then there are players at the other end of the spectrum, who regard GP scores as heresy.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Now you're getting it, but we're not all equal, duffers are being unequally rewarded.

I fully expect the first review to have a tweak that will address this, most likely as someone said above, making the allowance maybe 90%, with 4BBB getting a further equivalent % cut as well
		
Click to expand...

Even without such a review though, you are pleased with WHS and that it is a more equal system than the old one, and a big step forward ?


----------



## D-S (Oct 7, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Just to throw another possibility on why ‘high handicappers’ are winning all the comps, could it be because all the single figure players are not entering the comps, or NR’ing to protect their handicaps so they can enter opens, play county teams, etc?
Handicap ‘manipulation’ can be done by all 🤔
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe they think when they shoot their round of the decade and are net 7 under, gross 2 under and get comfortably beaten by someone off 28, there is really little point in entering next time. This is even more of the case when it comes to matchplay competitions now.
By the way when who and why is anyone ‘Nr’ing to protect their handicaps’ and when did County Teams get selected on handicap alone?


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

D-S said:



			Or maybe they think when they shoot their round of the decade and are net 7 under, gross 2 under and get comfortably beaten by someone off 28, there is really little point in entering next time.
		
Click to expand...

Then they are just a sore looser, who doesn't understand the principle of handicap golf, mistakenly thinks his gross score has relevance to the matter, doesn't realise that there is nothing amiss if he looses despite his net 7 under, and sulks like a child by not entering future competitions.


----------



## D-S (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Then they are just a sore looser, who doesn't understand the principle of handicap golf, mistakenly thinks his gross score has relevance to the matter, doesn't realise that there is nothing amiss if he looses despite his net 7 under, and sulks like a child by not entering future competitions.
		
Click to expand...

Well you sound like a real bundle of fun.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 7, 2022)

Who made rule saying the low handicappers must always win net competitions? I thought handicaps were to give all individual players an equal chance. As there are more players worse than 5 cap than better than 6, then more net comps will be won by higher cappers.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Then they are just a sore looser, who doesn't understand the principle of handicap golf, mistakenly thinks his gross score has relevance to the matter, doesn't realise that there is nothing amiss if he looses despite his net 7 under, and sulks like a child by not entering future competitions.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously, we are not countering arguments now by calling people cry babies!?

There could well be something in the sort of club a player is at. My latest club is a pretty well established, and one of the better courses in the county (by reputation). Virtually everyone who enters competitions are regular golfers and competition players. Any new faces have likely come from other clubs, have a settled handicap, and probably just feel like they want to push themselves on. Also, the club has a 24 handicap limit in most comps. As such, the mens competitions are won with "modest" scores, not sure I've seen a score more than 5 or 6 better than CR (which is close to.par,). Many comps won with 36-39 points, or equivalent nett medal score. The biggest complaint around handicaps is in match play, with many more of the lower guys now refusing to enter those comps.

However, if you have a club with many newbies, and is a cheap and cheerful course for players to introduce themselves to game, then there are bound to be many more high handicappers, and this amazing nett scores. Some will he improving. This sort of club may also have a higher proportion of higher handicappers who have played for years, these high handicappers capable of great scores from time to time.

So, it might simply be that how much this is noticed by members depends on the profile of the players in comps. Some clubs might be lucky enough not to see any real issues, others might have seen a significant change since WHS (negative to the low handicap guys)


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Who made rule saying the low handicappers must always win net competitions? I thought handicaps were to give all individual players an equal chance. As there are more players worse than 5 cap than better than 6, then more net comps will be won by higher cappers.
		
Click to expand...

No one said that. And we all know individual golfers do NOT have an equal chance.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			No one said that. And we all know individual golfers do NOT have an equal chance.
		
Click to expand...

But equal enough. Low hcs had an advantage for 40 years. There wasnt uproar, and we got on with our golf. The system was improved and made fairer, so that's good. We should all just carry on playing our golf.

The biggest eye opener for me in this discussion is that some regard gross scores being relevant to handicap golf. Bizarre misunderstanding there.


----------



## Backache (Oct 7, 2022)

The overwhelming concern that I see is people worried that very high or low (depending on whether one is talking medal or Stableford) Nett scores have become far more prevalent since the introduction of WHS.
This would indicate that inaccurate handicapping had become more prevalent.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

Backache said:



			The overwhelming concern that I see is people worried that very high or low (depending on whether one is talking medal or Stableford) Nett scores have become far more prevalent since the introduction of WHS.
This would indicate that inaccurate handicapping had become more prevalent.
		
Click to expand...

Yet the data shies the situation is more level than ever. Indicating people are made paranoid by change, even when the change is an improvement.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Yet the data shies the situation is more level than ever. Indicating people are made paranoid by change, even when the change is an improvement.
		
Click to expand...

Does it though? No one answered my question? Did the data in the link earlier in this thread indicate the average Stableford score was now much more similar for all handicap ranges?


----------



## Backache (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Yet the data shies the situation is more level than ever. Indicating people are made paranoid by change, even when the change is an improvement.
		
Click to expand...

Which data?


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 7, 2022)

Backache said:



			Which data?
		
Click to expand...

Banchory's link from hiwdidido, which corresponded well with a specific club analysis done by one poster here.


----------



## Wabinez (Oct 7, 2022)

Could there also be an element of fact that there are more higher handicap players playing in comps, which in turn leads to a higher probability that a score would be turned in.

as others have said, I haven’t seen it at my own course. unless it was very early in the year and temporary greens were in play which basically meant there is no trouble around any ‘green’ and you could putt from 50 yards away. Non-qualifiers though, so wouldn’t affect handicap in any way


----------



## Backache (Oct 7, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Banchory's link from hiwdidido, which corresponded well with a specific club analysis done by one poster here.
		
Click to expand...

The data was of average scores which may well not be relevant to winning scores which by definition are the furthest deviation from that average on any given day. If higher handicappers have a higher deviation they are systematically more likely to win.
If your head is in the oven and your feet in the freezer your average ambient temperature may well be perfectly comfortable but you certainly won't feel it. 
There is no point in telling folk it's fair if the chances of winning are systematically higher for the higher handicappers.


----------



## Russty (Oct 7, 2022)

WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules 
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!


----------



## Slab (Oct 8, 2022)

rulefan said:



			It's interesting that all the ones reported are relatively short courses which suggests that more players will reach the green in regulation. Length being a major factor in CR.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah it kinda got me wondering if 113 in some territories might not be as natural as intended 

I mean by modern standards some of these examples I'd describe as exceptionaly short courses


----------



## Imurg (Oct 8, 2022)

Russty said:



			WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!
		
Click to expand...

So as soon as 2 poor scores come in there is an implication of handicap manipulation.??
Are people not allowed to have a bad day or 2?
He may be playing the system but he may just be playing poorly
I'm perfectly capable of shooting 3 under for 9.....or 8 over..
Looking at my WHS record my scores drift from 74 to 92...and I'm a 5.4 index. 18 shots....
Does that automatically mean those high scores are an attempt to get a few shots back?
Or have I just had a bad round and played crap?
It annoys me that when someone has a good or bad day there's almost an immediate cry of foul.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 8, 2022)

Imurg said:



			So as soon as 2 poor scores come in there is an implication of handicap manipulation.??
Are people not allowed to have a bad day or 2?
He may be playing the system but he may just be playing poorly
I'm perfectly capable of shooting 3 under for 9.....or 8 over..
Looking at my WHS record my scores drift from 74 to 92...and I'm a 5.4 index. 18 shots....
Does that automatically mean those high scores are an attempt to get a few shots back?
Or have I just had a bad round and played crap?
It annoys me that when someone has a good or bad day there's almost an immediate cry of foul.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed…sometimes if after a few holes I can see or feel that it’s not going to be a good day I’ll start taking on shots from places that I might not otherwise take on…because I want to find out if I can play the shots.  Now if they come off my score could end up much better than things were looking.  If they don’t my score could be grim.  That’s not ‘not trying’, is trying differently. 

And it’s definitely not ‘throwing’ a round for handicap manipulation purposes; though in truth I can see how some might well view it that way.


----------



## BiMGuy (Oct 8, 2022)

Russty said:



			WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! *Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round.* I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!
		
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 8, 2022)

Russty said:



			WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules 
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!
		
Click to expand...

So, I agree in that WHS can allow such golfers to unfairly get their handicaps up more quickly.

However, I'd be extremely cautious accusing any individual as a cheat if they happen to post a few higher scores. Especially if you are in the position of handicap secretary. Player scores can fluctuate massively from one round to another. I've been level par, or close to that after 9 holes. I've also been close to 15 over, and I certainly tried to shoot much lower than that. But, done days I am just rubbish. Might have a few blow up holes, or just play scrappy golf throughout.

If you are going to accuse someone of being a cheat, you'd need a heck of a lot of evidence, or an admission. That in itself may make it harder to identify those trying to manipulate things, and it is hard to tell the difference in someone intentionally playing a bit scrappy to inflate a score, and those that are just scrappy.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 8, 2022)

Russty said:



			WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!
		
Click to expand...

What's the difference between Supplementary Scores and General Play scores. As hcap Sec did you not encourage the former? How did did you handle 'cheating' then?


----------



## wjemather (Oct 8, 2022)

Russty said:



			WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!
		
Click to expand...

Handicap secs should know better than to immediately leap to accusations of cheating based on 2 good and 2 not-so-good scores.

Of course, if you know that player responsibilities were not fulfilled, you need to fulfil yours and remove the offending unacceptable score(s). Further action is also available to the committee.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 8, 2022)

Slab said:



			Yeah it kinda got me wondering if 113 in some territories might not be as natural as intended

I mean by modern standards some of these examples I'd describe as exceptionaly short courses
		
Click to expand...

Ours is 6500 yds and 129 slope.
It’s not long but not short for most ams.
We still get some very silly scores.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 8, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Even without such a review though, you are pleased with WHS and that it is a more equal system than the old one, and a big step forward ?
		
Click to expand...

do you really misconstrue every comment to this degree? There is nothing about WHS I like, it is a much poorer system in every respect, PCC/CSS, the ease of moving higher, the sloweness of moving down, the changing of handicap from course to course, literally nothing is good about it. And yes I do understand it, I'm a H'cap Sec and I take that responsibility seriously, it's a load of (Mod Edit, infraction issued) IMO, so please don't misrepresnt me as badly as you possibly could. What a facile comment to make


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 8, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Banchory's link from hiwdidido, which corresponded well with a specific club analysis done by one poster here.
		
Click to expand...

Be good if you actualy took the time to read an understand it though,


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 8, 2022)

Wabinez said:



*Could there also be an element of fact that there are more higher handicap players playing in comps, which in turn leads to a higher probability that a score would be turned in.*

as others have said, I haven’t seen it at my own course. unless it was very early in the year and temporary greens were in play which basically meant there is no trouble around any ‘green’ and you could putt from 50 yards away. Non-qualifiers though, so wouldn’t affect handicap in any way
		
Click to expand...

No, the probabilty is factored into this stats. It was the main reason low handicaps used to complain about UHS, but ststistically they were wrong. Now under WHS though they are correct


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 8, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			No, the probabilty is factored into this stats. It was the main reason low handicaps used to complain about UHS, but ststistically they were wrong. Now under WHS though they are correct
		
Click to expand...

Spot on.
But the powers that be had a chance to sort this out once and for all, but have made a complete hash of it imo.
Why do we need a World system in the first place.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 8, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Spot on.
But the powers that be had a chance to sort this out once and for all, but have made a complete hash of it imo.
Why do we need a World system in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

I guess it is because pre WHS, golfers were discouraged from playing abroad. Now most golfers are jetting all round the world to play golf with their portable Index , growing the game....


----------



## rulefan (Oct 8, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Spot on.
But the powers that be had a chance to sort this out once and for all, but have made a complete hash of it imo.
Why do we need a World system in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

We have world rules. Why not the rest of the game?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 8, 2022)

Wee set of factoids from medal today.  Lovely sunny day with not much wind.  124 played; won by a 9 hcapper; 14 played to handicap or better; 6 of first 14 were SF hcappers.  I‘m not seeing too many WHS issues at my place.


----------



## IanM (Oct 8, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I‘m not seeing too many WHS issues at my place.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think most well run clubs with stable memberships are...even if a few _local rules_ need bringing in to ensure it!


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 8, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Wee set of factoids from medal today.  Lovely sunny day with not much wind.  124 played; won by a 9 hcapper; 14 played to handicap or better; 6 of first 14 were SF hcappers.  I‘m not seeing too many WHS issues at my place.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much same at ours today also, 96 in extra medal with player off 1 winning with a level par round , 6 of top 10 single figures with 10, 10 13 and 23 the rest


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 8, 2022)

rulefan said:



			We have world rules. Why not the rest of the game?
		
Click to expand...

Let’s be honest how many of us are going to play competition golf in another country.
A handful at most.
But they imposed this crap system on the whole golfing community.
They havnt even squared the circle and took any advantage out of it, skewing it from low to high.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 8, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Let’s be honest how many of us are going to play competition golf in another country.
A handful at most.
But they imposed this crap system on the whole golfing community.
They havnt even squared the circle and took any advantage out of it, skewing it from low to high.
		
Click to expand...

About 150 or more from my club venture to Spain, Portugal, Florida, Turkey every year.
We haven't seen any of the low to high skewing you have described.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 8, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Let’s be honest how many of us are going to play competition golf in another country.
A handful at most.
But they imposed this crap system on the whole golfing community.
They havnt even squared the circle and took any advantage out of it, skewing it from low to high.
		
Click to expand...

Competition golf is not is not the only golf where there is a need/desire for equivalent directly comparable handicaps, and countless people travel abroad to play golf each year and use their handicap.

As for competition golf... at our club, we have members who also hold memberships in the US, Australia, Spain, Portugal, etc. and play comps while there; every year, over 20 members play a comp in Portugal with/against locals and ex-pats (which was never a fair contest before WHS). I'm certain we are not particularly unusual in either regard.

Most importantly though, the evidence overwhelmingly supports WHS as being the most equitable handicap system we have ever had. That alone makes it pretty good. Is it perfect? No, but then a perfect handicap system does not exist (and likely never will).


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Competition golf is not is not the only golf where there is a need/desire for equivalent directly comparable handicaps, and countless people travel abroad to play golf each year and use their handicap.

As for competition golf... at our club, we have members who also hold memberships in the US, Australia, Spain, Portugal, etc. and play comps while there; every year, over 20 members play a comp in Portugal with/against locals and ex-pats (which was never a fair contest before WHS). I'm certain we are not particularly unusual in either regard.

Most importantly though, the evidence overwhelmingly supports WHS as being the most equitable handicap system we have ever had. That alone makes it pretty good. Is it perfect? No, but then a perfect handicap system does not exist (and likely never will).
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree it never will.
If their members in another country they can revert to the local system.
What did they do before WHS ?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 9, 2022)

rulefan said:



			About 150 or more from my club venture to Spain, Portugal, Florida, Turkey every year.
We haven't seen any of the low to high skewing you have described.
		
Click to expand...

And play amongst themselves, so what need was there for a "world" system? And, tbf, that is a huge number, not even double digits at my club. We've not had a single overseas GP score posted in two years now


----------



## rulefan (Oct 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			And play amongst themselves,
		
Click to expand...

A fair proportion have second homes and/or have dual membership. Many of those that haven't play in local competitions but now with the 'correct' handicap.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 9, 2022)

For people who move around, being able to take their handicap with them is huge. Their handicap now reflects how they've been playing recently rather than reverting to many months previous; and better yet, new members who would previously have had to submit scores for a new handicap simply bring their handicap with them.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			For people who move around, being able to take their handicap with them is huge. Their handicap now reflects how they've been playing recently rather than reverting to many months previous; and better yet, new members who would previously have had to submit scores for a new handicap simply bring their handicap with them.
		
Click to expand...

And better yet, if they have a high handicap, makes them favourites to smash the 50 points barrier


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 9, 2022)

Asked a week ago our Golf Manager told me that historically at my place about 10% of players play under handicap in a comp, and that he has not seen that change under WHS. 

Yesterday in medal with conditions good but rough relatively difficult, of 124 playing only 10 played under their CH - all but three were Div 1 (CH<15). The winner off 9, scored 5 under and is now off 8.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 9, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			And better yet, if they have a high handicap, makes them favourites to smash the 50 points barrier 

Click to expand...

That scenario is extremely unlikely under WHS, but was a real possibility before - e.g. a 28 handicapper spends six months away, during which time their overseas handicap comes down to 12; they then return and their handicap is still 28.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			That scenario is extremely unlikely under WHS, but was a real possibility before - e.g. a 28 handicapper spends six months away, during which time their overseas handicap comes down to 12; they then return and their handicap is still 28.
		
Click to expand...

Didn’t you just declare your lowest handicap if you were a member of two clubs.?
That would sort that problem out, 

A travelling handicap can really be a problem.
Going from the UK to playing on Bermuda grass in Florida is bad enough for top professionals never mind us mere mortals.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 9, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Didn’t you just declare your lowest handicap if you were a member of two clubs.?
That would sort that problem out,

A travelling handicap can really be a problem.
Going from the UK to playing on Bermuda grass in Florida is bad enough for top professionals never mind us mere mortals.
		
Click to expand...

No, because the systems were not directly comparable. CONGU decisions contained (very rough) methodology for comparison of EGA handicaps such that "a general play adjustment may be considered"; it was even more vague with respect to other handicap systems.

Handicap golfers have more to worry about than the type of grass. This is a non-problem.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			No, because the systems were not directly comparable. CONGU decisions contained (very rough) methodology for comparison of EGA handicaps such that "a general play adjustment may be considered"; it was even more vague with respect to other handicap systems.

Handicap golfers have more to worry about than the type of grass. This is a non-problem.
		
Click to expand...

Not to sure about the grass.
I have played Bermuda and it takes some getting used to.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			No, the probabilty is factored into this stats. It was the main reason low handicaps used to complain about UHS, but ststistically they were wrong. Now under WHS though they are correct
		
Click to expand...

But nevertheless, its an improvement on its predecessor as far as levelling the field goes. 
Surely, improvement is good, even if not to perfection, and so to be welcomed. I dont see how you can deny that.
If a less perfect version was acceptable to golf here for 40 years, a better version cannot be painted as a problem.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 9, 2022)

The main thing I miss with the new system is that there is no longer a buffer so if you are having a poor round people now just give up and nr more than withbthe old system. I quite enjoyed still trying to make buffer on the back 9, but now it doesn't matter if its not having to be one of your better scores or isn't knocking a good score off.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 9, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			The main thing I miss with the new system is that there is no longer a buffer so if you are having a poor round people now just give up and nr more than withbthe old system. I quite enjoyed still trying to make buffer on the back 9, but now it doesn't matter if its not having to be one of your better scores or isn't knocking a good score off.
		
Click to expand...

We have seen the opposite. Previously there would be lots of NRs with no hole scores recorded after a bad hole even if the card was returned (which was almost never), whereas now almost every score is returned and players are correctly recording their hole scores following an NR hole.

Since any score can ultimately end up in the best 8, every non-counting score provides a buffer.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			The main thing I miss with the new system is that there is no longer a buffer so if you are having a poor round people now just give up and nr more than with the old system. I quite enjoyed still trying to make buffer on the back 9, but now it doesn't matter if its not having to be one of your better scores or isn't knocking a good score off.
		
Click to expand...

I find that motivation is still there. I see my buffer-zone type number as my worst counting score of my 8.
Its usually 3 or 4 above my HI, so it is equivalent to the buffer zone challenge I use to play against myself, like you, in the UHS days.

And mathematically is similar.

If you can get close to, or into that best 8, then your hc will be more stable. If you let your round collapse, it can be even more increasing of your hc than a 0.1 of old.


----------



## tobybarker (Oct 9, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			When I’m king no adult will be allowed more than one shot per hole in any kind of competition.
		
Click to expand...

Where can I vote for you?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 9, 2022)

rulefan said:



			A fair proportion have second homes and/or have dual membership. Many of those that haven't play in local competitions but now with the 'correct' handicap.
		
Click to expand...

OK you're talking about a very small minority of the population. There is nobody in my club in this situation


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 9, 2022)

Stableford scores have def gone up at my club since whs. If you shot 37 points or more before you would be in with a high chance of winning. Now it's low to.mid 40 and at times high 40s. Tbh I don't really play in the Stableford comps as they are on a Sunday and I don't play that often on a Sunday if I can help it. Anyway. None of our comps are dominated by over 20 handicaps as far as I know, it's been more mid handicaps if anything, most of the handicap comps are being won by mid teens, but all the strokeplay comps have a gross prize anyway, so low guys are still able to win those. I havnt checked this year but last year of the 10 silver trophy  handicap comps which are our equivalent to a board comp 9 we're won by higher mid teen handicaps.  Not checked this year tbh.


----------



## IanM (Oct 9, 2022)

136 players in our comp yesterday.   My 37 points would have been a prize or just outside previously.  I wasn't inside top 30.  Make of that what you will  😁


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

Without knowing the SSS in those two examples or number of entrants, 37 winning seems like there was a problem beforehand WHS, which WHS has now normalised with other clubs. But taking SSS as 36 points for example, and 100 players, 37 points should not normally have won. Congu UHS would have expected 40-42 typically, if working correctly. Similar to WHS.
Maybe the clubs that think WHS isnt working, are actually ones where UHS wasnt working, they didnt know it, but now things have corrected themselves with the improvements brought by WHS ?


----------



## D-S (Oct 9, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Without knowing the SSS in those two examples or number of entrants, 37 winning seems like there was a problem beforehand WHS, which WHS has now normalised with other clubs. But taking SSS as 36 points for example, and 100 players, 37 points should not normally have won. Congu UHS would have expected 40-42 typically, if working correctly. Similar to WHS.
Maybe the clubs that think WHS isnt working, are actually ones where UHS wasnt working, they didnt know it, but now things have corrected themselves with the improvements brought by WHS ?
		
Click to expand...

Again, if UHS wasn’t working why weren’t we told? Why wasn’t something done to improve it? 

Perhaps that might be what is happening now, WHS isn’t working but we are not being told and nothing is being done about it.


----------



## Steve Wilkes (Oct 9, 2022)

D-S said:



*Again, if UHS wasn’t working why weren’t we told? Why wasn’t something done to improve it?*

Perhaps that might be what is happening now, WHS isn’t working but we are not being told and nothing is being done about it.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe the intention for UHS was how it was working, ie to favour towards the lower end of the handicap scale.


----------



## D-S (Oct 9, 2022)

Steve Wilkes said:



			Maybe the intention for UHS was how it was working, ie to favour towards the lower end of the handicap scale.
		
Click to expand...

If that was how it was and this was considered to be unfair then fine. 
But we were not informed  that this bias (if it was there) was indeed wrong (or otherwise why hadn’t it been corrected), nor were we told pre transition that one of the goals of WHS was to ’right this wrong’. All people want is a bit of transparency which would have avoided a lot of doubt, confusion and suspicion.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

Mentioned hereabouts in several threads recently (sorry, the graphs and tables didnt copy over, but the text tells the story nonetheless I think).
This stuff was from about 20 years ago. You have to love the title quote on the second one........somethings never change it seem. Just WHS the fall guy for people's misunderstandings this time ! Talk about deja-vu !




Myth …..'If all club handicap competitions were 'open' i.e. no handicap classes or divisions, the single figure handicap player would stand no chance of winning.'
Research
· The analysis covers 750 club handicap competitions reported in the Herald in the months May to September. The competitions selected had a minimum field size of 75 competitors. · All competitions were evaluated as 'open' i.e. there was one overall winner of the competition irrespective of handicap. · The winners of the 750 competitions were grouped into the four handicap categories. The distribution of winners by handicap category is shown below:

Outcome · The winners by handicap category were as follows:
Category 1 (Handicaps 5 or less)
10%
Category 2 (Handicaps 6-12)
33%
Category 3 (Handicaps 13-20)
38%
Category 4 (Handicaps 21-28)
19%
· On face value this would suggest that the probability of winning a club competition is heavily and unfairly biased in favour of Category 2 and 3 players. However, the story is incomplete ……….read on!
If the above findings are related to a typical club entry (average over a number of clubs in a range of competitions) a different picture emerges:
· 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. · This would suggest that handicapping is acceptably fair and equitable throughout the handicap range.
The distribution of 'Winners' with respect to playing handicap, assuming all competitions were run as a single class handicap event, can be looked at another way: · Club handicaps are typically distributed as below (aggregate of the handicap distribution of players playing in three or more competitions p.a. in a range of golf clubs) · The average playing handicap of the players in the sample was 14.
· Below is the distribution of winners by handicap derived from information published in the Herald Club Golf Returns over three years and embracing 2622 competitions (approximately 250,000 rounds of golf!)
· It can be seen from direct comparison of the two distributions that there is good correlation between the number of players at a given handicap and their winning frequency. · The average handicap of the winning player was found to be 13.3 which bears very
favourable comparison to the average club handicap of 14 (discounting those members playing less than three qualifying competitions p.a.)




Myth….'You require at return at least a nett 60 or 48 Stableford points to win a competition nowadays…..'
Research
· To examine this 'myth' winning scores in club competitions were analysed relative to the CSS. As before all competitions were considered to be 'open' i.e. overall lowest score irrespective of class, division or handicap category. (To qualify for inclusion in this analysis the competitions had to have a minimum of 75 competitors.) · The distribution of winning scores over a typical year (c. 750 competitions) is shown below:
· In the year shown winning scores ranged from 2 below the CSS to 11 below. · The average winning score in 1997 was 5.6 strokes below the CSS (This equates to 41-42 Stableford points). In the following year the average winning score was 5.5 strokes below the CSS. This shows remarkable consistency!
In the above figure it can be seen (LHS of bar chart) that a relatively small number of competitions are won with scores of 9 strokes or more below the CSS. It is these 'scandalous' winning scores that give the handicapping system a 'bad name' and to which critics frequently refer.
These 'scandalous' but infrequent very low winning scores prompted the following question:
Who are those players who return scores of nine or more under the CSS? (Sandbaggers – Bandits – Handicap Builders?)
Research
· The Herald newspaper until recently identified the 'Bandit of the Week' (in a kind and sympathetic manner!) from their weekly golf returns i.e. the player(s) returning the most 'scandalous' score(s). · With the co-operation of clubs and players, the playing records of a wide range of 'Bandits' were obtained. · Analysis of these returns identified that 'Bandits' fell into three fairly distinct and evenly spread categories. » Many displayed no previous 'form' and simply had a day 'in the golfing sun' playing beyond all reasonable expectation. (Group A) » With the benefit of hindsight the second group gave a fairly clear indication of their potential to score lower than their handicap. A more vigilant handicapping committee could perhaps have applied a Clause 19 (General Play) handicap reduction before the 'scandalous' score occurred (Group B) » Members of the third group were infrequent stroke play competitors and possessed handicaps that did not reflect their current improved ability. (Group C)
· Typical scoring patterns expressed as Nett Differentials for members of Groups A – C were as follows: Group A 11, NR, 15, 3, NR, 4, 5, 3, 9, 5, 8, 7, 0, 2, -9, 5, 8, 11, 6, 3, 10, 16. (Year starting h'cap 28. Closing h'cap 22.6. Clause 19 reduction of 2.4)
Group B -2, -2, -5, -2, 0, 5, NR, 6, NR, -10, 13, NR, 4, 0, 3, 6, 4, 3. (Year starting h'cap 16.3. Closing h'cap 10.3.)
Group C 1996 NR, 3 1997 NR, -1 1998 0, -8, 5, -11, 13, 7, -1, 3, 1, NR, 6, 5. (Year starting h'cap 17.3. Closing h'cap 8.5. Clause 19 reduction 3.8)


----------



## Steve Wilkes (Oct 9, 2022)

D-S said:



			If that was how it was and this was considered to be unfair then fine.
But we were not informed  that this bias (if it was there) was indeed wrong (or otherwise why hadn’t it been corrected), nor were we told pre transition that one of the goals of WHS was to ’right this wrong’. All people want is a bit of transparency which would have avoided a lot of doubt, confusion and suspicion.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think UHS deemed their system to be unfair. We were not told one of the goals was to right a wrong because they didn't see a wrong to right. 
They one main reason of the implementation of WHS was to make a Handicap Index transportable around the world. 
I'm pretty sure they thought 95% and 90% reductions etc.. would bring the balance back to nearly as before.
In my opinion and in my experience, with players putting in cards (scoring with integrity), it seems a fair system, especially in one to one or 4 ball matches, but in large field club tournaments it will always favour those with a bigger scope in scoring and/or players with inaccurate indexes due to various reasons like not enough cards submitted and the obvious players who are a couple to a few shots higher because of the nature of the way they score when not in contention (known as sandbaggers or bandits back in the day)


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			Stableford scores have def gone up at my club since whs. If you shot 37 points or more before you would be in with a high chance of winning. Now it's low to.mid 40 and at times high 40s. Tbh I don't really play in the Stableford comps as they are on a Sunday and I don't play that often on a Sunday if I can help it. Anyway. None of our comps are dominated by over 20 handicaps as far as I know, *it's been more mid handicaps if anything*, most of the handicap comps are being won by mid teens, but all the strokeplay comps have a gross prize anyway, so low guys are still able to win those. I havnt checked this year but last year of the 10 silver trophy  handicap comps which are our equivalent to a board comp 9 we're won by higher mid teen handicaps.  Not checked this year tbh.
		
Click to expand...

And so it should be. Handicaps are predominantly mid teens.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

Is it such a shock that low handicaps make only a small % of the field but still win now and again.
All that practice to hone their game .
Hours on the putting green.

But someone turns up and smashes the field with his shots. doesn't know where the practice ground is but can knock it round in 10 over off 18/19 cap.
Gets a cut then puts 20 cards in over a few weeks so he can do it again.
Fair system my a….


----------



## IanM (Oct 9, 2022)

Steve Wilkes said:



			They one main reason of the implementation of WHS was to make a Handicap Index transportable around the world.
		
Click to expand...

Seems a lot of work for just that!


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Is it such a shock that low handicaps make only a small % of the field but still win now and again.
All that practice to hone their game .
Hours on the putting green.

But someone turns up and smashes the field with his shots. doesn't know where the practice ground is but can knock it round in 10 over off 18/19 cap.
Gets a cut then puts 20 cards in over a few weeks so he can do it again.
Fair system my a….
		
Click to expand...

Practice time is not relevant to handicap allocation.
And the high handicap are cheats, low handicaps hardworking angels, is quite a prejudice.


----------



## D-S (Oct 9, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Is it such a shock that low handicaps make only a small % of the field but still win now and again.
All that practice to hone their game .
Hours on the putting green.

But someone turns up and smashes the field with his shots. doesn't know where the practice ground is but can knock it round in 10 over off 18/19 cap.
Gets a cut then puts 20 cards in over a few weeks so he can do it again.
Fair system my a….
		
Click to expand...

The better you get, the lower your chances of winning - seems a bit counter intuitive.
Perhaps we should revisit the famous Gary Player quote “the more I practice the unluckier I get”.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Practice time is not relevant to handicap allocation.
And the high handicap are cheats, low handicaps hardworking angels, is quite a prejudice.
		
Click to expand...

Where di I say he was a cheat!


----------



## wjemather (Oct 9, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Is it such a shock that low handicaps make only a small % of the field but still win now and again.
All that practice to hone their game .
Hours on the putting green.

But someone turns up and smashes the field with his shots. doesn't know where the practice ground is but can knock it round in 10 over off 18/19 cap.
Gets a cut then puts 20 cards in over a few weeks so he can do it again.
Fair system my a….
		
Click to expand...

Q: What has practice time got to do with handicapping?
A: Absolutely nothing.

Anyhow, low handicappers aren't the only ones who do practice, and many higher handicappers practice way more than low handicappers - some of whom don't ever visit the range/practice ground/net other than to hit half a dozen balls before playing just to see how much of their body is/isn't working that day.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

D-S said:



			The better you get, the lower your chances of winning - seems a bit counter intuitive.
Perhaps we should revisit the famous Gary Player quote “the more I practice the unluckier I get”.
		
Click to expand...

That’s basically what is happening.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Q: What has practice time got to do with handicapping?
A: Absolutely nothing.

Anyhow, low handicappers aren't the only ones who do practice, and many higher handicappers practice way more than low handicappers - some of whom don't ever visit the range/practice ground/net other than to hit half a dozen balls before playing just to see how much of their body is/isn't working that day.
		
Click to expand...

It shows their attitude towards the game ,they want to be better golfers not just turn up with lots of shots.
But it seems now having a better handicap means nothing to some.
I heard a guy say yesterday “ I need to go up a few shots to give me a chance”
That’s a bad state imo.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			It shows their attitude towards the game ,they want to be better golfers not just turn up with lots of shots.
But it seems now having a better handicap means nothing to some.
I heard a guy say yesterday “ I need to go up a few shots to give me a chance”
That’s a bad state imo.
		
Click to expand...

Having a better handicap is nothing to do with handicapped competition golf and means nothing in that context. Conflating the two seems to be a common misunderstanding in this discussion.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

D-S said:



			The better you get, the lower your chances of winning - seems a bit counter intuitive.
		
Click to expand...

Not really. Its handicap golf. Not gross. The betterness is irrelevant.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 9, 2022)

D-S said:



			The better you get, the lower your chances of winning - seems a bit counter intuitive.
		
Click to expand...

The way all handicapping works, improvers will always have the highest chance of winning.


----------



## Blob Jacket (Oct 9, 2022)

Low lads and bandits aside, is there anybody who thinks WHS is just ‘alright’ and not as polarising as this thread suggests?

It’s got me about right but I use it the same as CONGU, so maybe supplementary scores are the difference when they haven’t been before?


----------



## D-S (Oct 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			The way all handicapping works, improvers will always have the highest chance of winning.
		
Click to expand...

That makes sense, I will rephrase, “The more consistent I get, the lower my chances of winning”.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 9, 2022)

Steve Wilkes said:



			I don't think UHS deemed their system to be unfair. We were not told one of the goals was to right a wrong because they didn't see a wrong to right.
		
Click to expand...

There is more to it than that. As I have indicated before, the high handicappers have always suffered under CONGU.  It was expected that Slope would help rectify this.
All CONGU nations except the EGU (the men's authority prior to the England Golf merger) had their courses rated under the USGA system (ie with slope) but the then incumbent chair of the handicapping dept at the EGU insisted that their new SSS rating be used rather than the USGA rating (Not invented here?). So all GB&I were stuck with SSS. Slope now means that higher cappers get an equalising handicap appropriate to the relative difficulty of the course they are playing. Slope is arguably one of the major drivers for the world to make a step towards consolidation.

I wonder what all these super high scores would be if the player's cap was limited to that of a scratch player.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 9, 2022)

D-S said:



			The better you get, the lower your chances of winning - seems a bit counter intuitive.
.
		
Click to expand...

That's why there are net competitions.
Handicaps are to equalise for the individual. The Powderhall Sprint didn't have all except the back marker starting on the 10 yard line. They were spaced out according to their previous performances. Most runners did not start at the back. Not all winners came from the front. All down to who ran better on the day than their ranking .


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Practice time is not relevant to handicap allocation.
And the high handicap are cheats, low handicaps hardworking angels, is quite a prejudice.
		
Click to expand...

I will ask again as you seem very selective .
“WHERE DID I SAY THEY ARE CHEATS”
they are using a very poor system by the rules.
They can shoot the lights out, then put 20 cards in in 20 days and be back or even higher than they were.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 9, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Where di I say he was a cheat!
		
Click to expand...

You didnt. I take back that incorrect specification.
You present the common caricature of the higher handicapper repeatedly posting 20 scores in a few weeks, which whether deliberately or through natural variation unchecked by WHS, enables them to score 45 points cyclically though. A golfer capable of shooting 80, putting in 20 cards in three weeks will not have a handicap rising and falling to a large degree. It is probably more stable than the scratch player submitting a card every week or two.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			OK you're talking about a very small minority of the population. There is nobody in my club in this situation
		
Click to expand...

Rather a bizarre statement that WHS was designed to help those poor folk with a second home abroad and multiple golf club memberships in several countries. Must have been really tough for them struggling to get by.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			You didnt. I take back that incorrect specification.
You present the common caricature of the higher handicapper repeatedly posting 20 scores in a few weeks, which whether deliberately or through natural variation unchecked by WHS, enables them to score 45 points cyclically though. A golfer capable of shooting 80, putting in 20 cards in three weeks will not have a handicap rising and falling to a large degree. It is probably more stable than the scratch player submitting a card every week or two.
		
Click to expand...

How do you come to the conclusion that he’s putting in good scores.
I think you just won’t accept the system can be manipulated .
I am not saying they will do it in reality ,but the fact remains that they can and it’s within the rules.
More stable than a scratch player.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 9, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Rather a bizarre statement that WHS was designed to help those poor folk with a second home abroad and multiple golf club memberships in several countries. Must have been really tough for them struggling to get by.
		
Click to expand...

I don’t think he was .
Not the way I read it anyway.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 10, 2022)

Some of the ridiculous scores of 50+ points would still be an issue with any system.

Similar to Mod Eisley golf club. The number of bandits is incredible, the clubhouse is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 10, 2022)

I played with a chap here in West Australia last week (handicap 6) who told me that his son (10 years old ) played in a City Junior event, (they live in the country) and his handicap is 36 at his home club, but because of slope and CSS they gave him a handicap of 56....yes 56 when it was pointed out that the max is 54 the WA Golf Official stated that he was to play off 56.

Hence a ridiculous score was achieved (plus 50 something), they put his card in and made a hasty retreat as they were embarrassed, think I would have too.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 10, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Some of the ridiculous scores of 50+ points would still be an issue with any system.

Similar to Mod Eisley golf club. The number of bandits is incredible, the clubhouse is a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
		
Click to expand...

But less so. It has already been.discussed that high handicappers have got more shots back at most courses. Plus, WHS can more easily be manipulated than before. More shots equals higher scores


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			But less so. It has already been.discussed that high handicappers have got more shots back at most courses. Plus, WHS can more easily be manipulated than before. More shots equals higher scores
		
Click to expand...

Not quite so straight forward. The high hcs are only getting shots due to whs and slope that they should have had in the past but were deprived of. So its more a case of their 37 points being made 40. Not, they used to get 45, now they get 50.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 10, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Not quite so straight forward. The high hcs are only getting shots due to whs and slope that they should have had in the past but were deprived of. So its more a case of their 37 points being made 40. Not, they used to get 45, now they get 50.
		
Click to expand...

It is as simple though, it is all relative to the scores that were shot before.

As players, particularly high handicaps, get more shots than before WHS, then scores are inflated. So, scores of 48, 49 points before become 50+.

I was simply responding to the fact that scores of 50+ points would be seen more than pre WHS.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 10, 2022)

My point is that they wouldnt have had the 48 or 49 before in the first place. High hcs were underhandicapped.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 10, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			My point is that they wouldnt have had the 48 or 49 before in the first place. High hcs were underhandicapped.
		
Click to expand...

So, what you are saying, before WHS nobody ever scored 48-49 points. They either scored low to mid 40's, or broke 50?

WHS inflates scores due to slope. As such, more people will score above 20 points, 25 points, 30 points, 35 points, 40 points, 45 points, 50 points, etc. 

What do you mean high handicaps were underhandicapped? Are you saying the WHS system gives lower handicaps than before, when the opposite is shown to he true?


----------



## Slab (Oct 10, 2022)

Need a little help (in layman's terms if possible) from those with practical experience (@rulefan and @wjemather spring to mind, sorry I cant recall the others) and also interested in general thoughts

The table shows 4 courses; 2 local to me and 2 in the UK and I can't fathom why my Course handicap is same (or similar) for these 4 courses given the differences in distance alone

I've played courses 1, 2 & 3 many dozens of times so I know course 3 plays very (very) much easier than courses 1&2
Course 4 is an example from this thread in a similar slope rating range and is reported as easy by a member
I used ncrdb.usga.org to verify the information for course handicap
There is a difference of 600 yards between course 1 & 3 for no difference in course handicap
there is a massive difference of 1,200 yards between course 1 & 4 for a single shot difference in course handicap
par on course 3 & 4 is also lower than 1&2
At face value; Either I'm getting too few shots on course 1&2 (which I don't believe) or I'd get too many shots at course 3&4

Help please ...




edited as I had an old scorecard for one course showing different course length


----------



## D-S (Oct 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			So, what you are saying, before WHS nobody ever scored 48-49 points. They either scored low to mid 40's, or broke 50?

WHS inflates scores due to slope. As such, more people will score above 20 points, 25 points, 30 points, 35 points, 40 points, 45 points, 50 points, etc.

What do you mean high handicaps were underhandicapped? Are you saying the WHS system gives lower handicaps than before, when the opposite is shown to he true?
		
Click to expand...

We are now appear to being told is that under UHS higher handicappers received significantly too few shots and that they in fact needed 2,3 or 4 more shots to be competitive. Why we were not told this at the time, why the authorities seemed to think that this was ok and so they did nothing about it or that this key factor of the move to WHS was never mentioned in all the information given out remains a mystery.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 10, 2022)

Slab said:



			Need a little help (in layman's terms if possible) from those with practical experience (@rulefan and @wjemather spring to mind, sorry I cant recall the others) and also interested in general thoughts

The table shows 4 courses; 2 local to me and 2 in the UK and I can't fathom why my Course handicap is same (or similar) for these 4 courses given the differences in distance alone

I've played courses 1, 2 & 3 many dozens of times so I know course 3 plays very (very) much easier than courses 1&2
Course 4 is an example from this thread in a similar slope rating range and is reported as easy by a member
I used ncrdb.usga.org to verify the information for course handicap
There is a difference of 600 yards between course 1 & 3 for no difference in course handicap
there is a massive difference of 1,200 yards between course 1 & 4 for a single shot difference in course handicap
par on course 3 & 4 is also lower than 1&2
At face value; Either I'm getting too few shots on course 1&2 (which I don't believe) or I'd get too many shots at course 3&4

Help please ...

View attachment 44732


edited as I had an old scorecard for one course showing different course length
		
Click to expand...

Course handicap is only different if there is a difference in relative difficulty between low and high handicappers. It does not account for absolute difficulty between courses. 

Simply put, if you were playing to handicap at each course, you'd need 37 points at Course 1, 38 points at Course 2, 37 points at Course 3 and 38 points at Course 4. In the US, they account for the difference between CR and Par in the Course Handicap calculation, so you may see the change in course handicap you were expecting.

The other factors to consider, which we will not know from that table, are where the obstructions are positioned generally. Are some longer courses quite open, while shorter courses got a lot of trees. Are bunkers and penalty areas in areas that are more likely to bother lower handicappers (generally bigger hitters), or in areas that bother higher handicappers and shorter hitters (more likely the former with lower Slopes)

My course is a good example, where the white tees are harder than the yellow tees in a direct comparison, as one would expect. Therefore the CR is higher for whites. However, the Slope is higher for yellows, because the white tees present a relatively harder challenge to lower handicappers than higher ones.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 10, 2022)

D-S said:



			We are now appear to being told is that under UHS higher handicappers received significantly too few shots and that they in fact needed 2,3 or 4 more shots to be competitive. Why we were not told this at the time, why the authorities seemed to think that this was ok and so they did nothing about it or that this key factor of the move to WHS was never mentioned in all the information given out remains a mystery.
		
Click to expand...

When I first went to England Golf Workshops, you could tell that there was a reluctance from some, if not many of them, in moving to WHS. It was almost like their hand was forced, and they just had to go along with it (I'm sure it created a lot of internal debates). However, once that decision was made, the marketing departments had to then do their best to highlight every possible factor that could show WHS as being better. And, now that UHS was being left behind, they could tear that to shreds (something they clearly would not have done before the decision was made to go to WHS.

Any complaint about WHS, I suspect the instinctive reaction to supporters and the authorities is to defend it rigorously. An easy argument is to simply say "UHS had it wrong, WHS is better, trust us". They will hope that line ends most arguments (and there may well be truth in it for some issues). However, if some of the issues continue to complained about, then they may well investigate behind the scenes, and then find ways of improving WHS in the future. They made changes to UHS plenty of times. So, I expect WHS authorities to continue to say "it is not a problem" right up until the point they make a change, and then they'll say the change is to fix a problem that they said wasn't a problem previously


----------



## wjemather (Oct 10, 2022)

D-S said:



			We are now appear to being told is that under UHS higher handicappers received significantly too few shots and that they in fact needed 2,3 or 4 more shots to be competitive. Why we were not told this at the time, why the authorities seemed to think that this was ok and so they did nothing about it or that this key factor of the move to WHS was never mentioned in all the information given out remains a mystery.
		
Click to expand...

This is nothing new. Nor was it a secret or a key selling point of WHS (however, it is a key selling point of Slope - keep reading). It used to be generally accepted that handicaps systems should give lower handicappers an advantage; and systems were intentionally designed to so just that, assisted by crippling allowances for higher handicappers (3/4, 3/8, etc.). Even though many still think lows should be significantly favoured, things change, and the system became more equitable - allowances were gradually increased (over the course of 30+ years!), and adopting Slope was to be the next step (UHS would then have looked similar to the EGA system). With adoption of Slope would have seen similar changes in course/playing handicaps under UHS, as have been seen with the transition to WHS.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 10, 2022)

Slab said:



			Need a little help (in layman's terms if possible) from those with practical experience (@rulefan and @wjemather spring to mind, sorry I cant recall the others) and also interested in general thoughts

The table shows 4 courses; 2 local to me and 2 in the UK and I can't fathom why my Course handicap is same (or similar) for these 4 courses given the differences in distance alone

I've played courses 1, 2 & 3 many dozens of times so I know course 3 plays very (very) much easier than courses 1&2
Course 4 is an example from this thread in a similar slope rating range and is reported as easy by a member
I used ncrdb.usga.org to verify the information for course handicap
There is a difference of 600 yards between course 1 & 3 for no difference in course handicap
there is a massive difference of 1,200 yards between course 1 & 4 for a single shot difference in course handicap
par on course 3 & 4 is also lower than 1&2
At face value; Either I'm getting too few shots on course 1&2 (which I don't believe) or I'd get too many shots at course 3&4

Help please ...

View attachment 44732


edited as I had an old scorecard for one course showing different course length
		
Click to expand...

In your table, to calculate your course handicap, you have used the formula _CH = (HI * Slope/113) + (CR - Par)_; which is correct in Mauritius but not in GB&I, where CR-Par is not included, but for ease of comparison, I'll use this to begin with:

Your 'play-to-handicap' score is 36 Stableford points, or adjusted nett par, on every course; i.e. adjusted gross 88, 88, 86, 84. So this means playing two strokes lower at course 3 than either course 1 or 2 - as the course handicaps are the same, it can be thought of as simply the difference in pars. It also means playing four strokes lower at course 4 - the difference in pars, plus the difference in strokes received.
If we use the GB&I course handicap calculation:

Your course handicaps would be 17, 18, 17 and 17, with 'play-to-handicap' scores (as detailed by Swango1980) of 37, 38, 37 and 38 Stableford points (or nett -1, -2, -1, -2), i.e. adjusted gross 88, 88, 86, 84.
Finally, which hopefully won't complicate/confuse matters too much, I will now use the appropriate course handicap calculations for each jurisdiction so we see what should happen in the real world:

So for courses 1 and 2 your CH is as per your table (16, 16), but for courses 3 and 4, they are as per the GB&I example above (i.e. 17, 17). 'Play-to-handicap' scores are 36, 36, 37, 38 Stableford points (or nett E, E, -1, -2), and these translate to the same adjusted gross scores, of 88, 88, 86, 84.

Note: there can be variance in the results from each method due to rounding, but thankfully not in this case.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 10, 2022)

Out of interest, of all the WHS jurisdictions in the world, which ones incorporate CR-Par into the course handicap, and which do not?


----------



## wjemather (Oct 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Out of interest, of all the WHS jurisdictions in the world, which ones incorporate CR-Par into the course handicap, and which do not?
		
Click to expand...

I have sourced WHS manuals from over a dozen jurisdictions and the only one I've found that doesn't is CONGU.


----------



## Captain_Black. (Oct 10, 2022)

So now, after yet another weekend high level banditry whereby our Sat & Sun comps were won by  22 &  31 handicappers & anyone under a 16 h/c didn't get a look in, I give up.

From now on I'll just enter the Board comps where the handicaps are restricted.
Otherwise it'll be just social golf from here on in.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 10, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			So now, after yet another weekend *high level banditry *whereby our Sat & Sun comps were won by  22 &  31 handicappers & anyone under a 16 h/c didn't get a look in, I give up.
		
Click to expand...

Why so accusatory? What evidence do you have that their handicaps are (were) questionable?
Would be interesting to have more details of the course & comps in order to analyse some of the results you are so incensed with.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			So, what you are saying, before WHS nobody ever scored 48-49 points. They either scored low to mid 40's, or broke 50?

WHS inflates scores due to slope. As such, more people will score above 20 points, 25 points, 30 points, 35 points, 40 points, 45 points, 50 points, etc.

What do you mean high handicaps were underhandicapped? Are you saying the WHS system gives lower handicaps than before, when the opposite is shown to he true?
		
Click to expand...

Interesting…my best Stableford score in the last 12months, and by a margin, was my 45 or whatever it was at Camberley Heath the dayB4 H4H last year.  My HI had drifted up and the Slope Rating of 136 (IIRC) gave me 13 shots…and at the time I was effectively playing steady to 9 or 10.  I thought Christmas had come early…🥳, and steady off the tee with decent short game (nothing special) saw me rack up most points I‘ve ever posted.  And of course it won the day.

As we will only have front 9 as qualifying course over winter it will be interesting to see if there is any difference in the stableford points being scored for that 9 as the Slope Rating is 117 cf SR of 125 for full course.


----------



## Slab (Oct 10, 2022)

Thanks @Swango1980 and @wjemather I wont quote the posts in order to keep the size of this reply down

I have a better understanding but still don't understand why they are anywhere near so closely rated since distance is one of the primary measures in setting the slope

Knowing them as I do, If I played the same standard of golf on courses 1 & 3 there will be a helluva lot more difference than one stableford point for the round score and I can't help thinking that if exactly the same rating team did both courses 1 & 3 tomorrow would the results differ from the current slope rating 

(I'm probably doing a huge disserve to the ratings teams saying the above but that's honestly not my intention. I just wonder if its possible that a course in a territory/area in the UK could be given a particular slope rated when compared (even subconsciously) to the slope rating calculated at other nearby courses rated by the same team and might it get a different slope rating compared to more difficult courses worldwide? i.e is it possible to rate a course solely on pre-defined criteria/measures and entirely in isolation to, and excluding all other courses rated by that team?)


----------



## Captain_Black. (Oct 10, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Why so accusatory? What evidence do you have that their handicaps are (were) questionable?
Would be interesting to have more details of the course & comps in order to analyse some of the results you are so incensed with.
		
Click to expand...

As in my original post.
It's been season long, I've gone back through the results & they make shocking reading.
I've read all the posts on this subject, both in favour of WHS & those who see the problem.
My mind is made up on this subject.

It heavily favours the higher handicapper who are regularly shooting scores that are unachievable by lower handicappers.

I play qualifiers 2 or 3 times a week in the summer, so my handicapper is pretty spot on.
I'm very cheesed off with seeing stupid scores coming in, always from players in the 22 to 32 handicap range.
It's absolutely pointless me entering qualifiers, so from now on it'll be just restricted h/c Board comps for me.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 10, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			As in my original post.
It's been season long, I've gone back through the results & they make shocking reading.
I've read all the posts on this subject, both in favour of WHS & those who see the problem.
My mind is made up on this subject.

It heavily favours the higher handicapper who are regularly shooting scores that are unachievable by lower handicappers.

I play qualifiers 2 or 3 times a week in the summer, so my handicapper is pretty spot on.
I'm very cheesed off with seeing stupid scores coming in, always from players in the 22 to 32 handicap range.
It's absolutely pointless me entering qualifiers, so from now on it'll be just restricted h/c Board comps for me.
		
Click to expand...

You aren't really answering the question, but I suspect it's expectations that are awry rather than having a club full of handicap manipulators.

Again, it would be interesting to have more details of the course & comps in order to analyse some of the results you are so incensed with.


----------



## Captain_Black. (Oct 10, 2022)

Not really prepared to divulge my coarse specifics other than to say it's a very long par 73.
I've personally witnessed one individual getting cut 2 shots for exceptional scoring, who after comparing & getting nowhere, then proceeded to enter as many minor qualifiers as possible which he wouldn't normally play in to not only restore his previous h/c, but to actually gain an additional 2 shots.

I seen players doing a (Brown) not his real name, whereby when playing in a minor qualifier they would throw the last 2 holes to avoid a cut.

I played a guy the other week in a ko comp, he was off 30.
He was 30 yards short of our stroke 1 par 5 for 2.
He tapped it on & sunk the putt.
He proceeded to play to about 12 for the rest of the round.

The Seniors section at my club is about 200 strong, there are probably about 20 or so players under a 15 h/c
There is probably a similar number who have a h/c of 15 to 24.
The rest are 24 to 45
I detect a mindset where once a player has a h/c higher than 15 or so, they loose all interest in getting any lower & their focus shifts to gaining shots to compete.
Quite a few of them are at it, & the scores coming in support my observations.
This mindset to a lesser degree I think is also creeping in to certain individuals within the Men's section as well.
Unfortunately we are going to end up with non Board comps just consisting of very high handicappers where the top 5 scores will be in excess of 45 points or a medal of up to 10 below par.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 10, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Not really prepared to divulge my coarse specifics other than to say it's a very long par 73.
I've personally witnessed one individual getting cut 2 shots for exceptional scoring, who after comparing & getting nowhere, then proceeded to enter as many minor qualifiers as possible which he wouldn't normally play in to not only* restore his previous h/c, but to actually gain an additional 2 shots*.

I seen players doing a (Brown) not his real name, whereby when playing in a minor qualifier they would *throw the last 2 holes to avoid a cut*.
		
Click to expand...

So what have your handicap committee done about this "manipulation"/failure to fulfil player responsibilities by not attempting to make the best score on each hole? (I am, of course, assuming someone else has fulfilled their responsibilities by reporting it)



Captain_Black. said:



			The Seniors section at my club is about 200 strong, there are probably about 20 or so players under a 15 h/c
There is probably a similar number who have a h/c of 15 to 24.
The rest are 24 to 45
		
Click to expand...

You have about 80% of players above 24 handicap, and 90% above 15 - it shouldn't be any surprise that they are returning the vast majority of the best scores and winning a huge proportion of competitions, even moreso if significant numbers of the lower handicappers are no longer entering.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 10, 2022)

Well someone won at our place on Saturday 2 under gross, 7 under nett and WON!

A big win for the low boys at our club! Hopefully more over winter


----------



## HampshireHog (Oct 10, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Well someone won at our place on Saturday 2 under gross, 7 under nett and WON!

A big win for the low boys at our club! Hopefully more over winter
		
Click to expand...

Bandit 😂

I can’t begrudge a high handicap the win anymore than I can take pleasure in the low handicap winning.

Fella at our place won the order of merit, handicap didn’t drop more 2 shots over the period.  Plenty of general play rounds contributing to that.  That really grinds.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 10, 2022)

Btw - if I may ask. What is CR-par.  Is it a thing in itself or is it the expression of the difference between CR and par.  Or indeed is it the thing that is the expression of the difference.  And whatever it is, what is it used for?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 10, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Btw - if I may ask. What is CR-par.  Is it a thing in itself or is it the expression of the difference between CR and par.  Or indeed is it the thing that is the expression of the difference.  And whatever it is, what is it used for?
		
Click to expand...

Imagine your course handicap. Then, Add CR-Par to it to get a different Course Handicap.

It is easy to take a scratch golfer as an example. In the UK, the player with an Index of 0.0 has a course handicap on every course of 0, no matter how easy or difficult.
However, with CR-Par they would not. If CR was 3 less than par, they'd play off -3, and if it was 3 more than par, they'd play off 3.


----------



## D-S (Oct 10, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Btw - if I may ask. What is CR-par.  Is it a thing in itself or is it the expression of the difference between CR and par.  Or indeed is it the thing that is the expression of the difference.  And whatever it is, what is it used for?
		
Click to expand...

It is an extra part of the calculation of your course handicap. If your course is CR 74 and par 72 CR- par is 2 shots so your CH would be 2 shots higher. But if for example you played off way forward tees and the CR off those tees was 69 CR 69 - Par 72 equals minus 3 so your CH would be 3 shots lower. 
In essence it means that with this as part of your course handicap means that if you score 36 points irrespective of tees or course you will have ‘played to your handicap’
Every country in the world except CONGU land adopted this.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 10, 2022)

D-S said:



			It is an extra part of the calculation of your course handicap. If your course is CR 74 and par 72 CR- par is 2 shots so your CH would be 2 shots higher. But if for example you played off way forward tees and the CR off those tees was 69 CR 69 - Par 72 equals minus 3 so your CH would be 3 shots lower.
In essence it means that with this as part of your course handicap means that if you score 36 points irrespective of tees or course you will have ‘played to your handicap’
Every country in the world except CONGU land adopted this.
		
Click to expand...

But makes no difference to your Differential (basically Gross - CR) which is the figure used to calculate your Handicap Index. It is said it is for stableford players who can't do arithmetic.


----------



## D-S (Oct 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			But makes no difference to your Differential (basically Gross - CR) which is the figure used to calculate your Handicap Index. It is said it is for stableford players who can't do arithmetic.
		
Click to expand...

So,why was it adopted in the US where Stableford is very rarely used?


----------



## sunshine (Oct 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Imagine your course handicap. Then, Add CR-Par to it to get a different Course Handicap.

It is easy to take a scratch golfer as an example. In the UK, the player with an Index of 0.0 has a course handicap on every course of 0, no matter how easy or difficult.
However, with CR-Par they would not. If CR was 3 less than par, they'd play off -3, and if it was 3 more than par, they'd play off 3.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, this is a really helpful explanation.

UK CONGU really messed up here. WHS would be far easier to understand with this addition.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 11, 2022)

Played yesterday in a field of over 100 and the winning score was 48 points, I only had to shoot 8 under to match him....darn I missed that short putt on the 18th.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 11, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			Played yesterday in a field of over 100 and the winning score was 48 points, I only had to shoot 8 under to match him....darn I missed that short putt on the 18th.
		
Click to expand...

That’s unlucky


----------



## effayjay (Oct 12, 2022)

I just don’t understand the logic of competition divisions When playing handicap golf. The very idea of a handicapping system is to allow competitors of differing ability to compete against each other.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 12, 2022)

effayjay said:



			I just don’t understand the logic of competition divisions When playing handicap golf. The very idea of a handicapping system is to allow competitors of differing ability to compete against each other.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but in practice it doesn't work out that way


----------



## effayjay (Oct 12, 2022)

I really don’t see why not.

In horse racing, with professional handicappers, the ultimate aim is to enable multiple dead heats. That doesn’t happen because horses are not machine, neither are golfers. In horse racing they do have divisions because handicapping is done with weight and there is only so much weight a horse can carry ( or how light jockeys can be. In golf there are no such restrictions and there is, as far as I can see, simply no logic to divisions in handicap golf divisions.


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 12, 2022)

And, as it doesn't seem to have been addressed, what does CR stand for? Course record? And all this discussion. I've always been a poor reader of rules if they are complicated, I tend to skim read and therefore end up not understanding. So with WHS, I've no idea what is going on. But I will say it has helped my wife to get her handicap down as she does not play in comps, hates them actually, so being able to input scores when we play has been brilliant. And yes, I realise this can be very easily manipulated. The bad thing with WHS is the wild swings in handicaps. It's not just point one anymore. This, I feel, is a bad thing. Also a mate of mine has plummeted to 23. He's never been lower than 27,and I can assure you all, he cannot play to 23.


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 12, 2022)

Also, I think comps should be about winning only, not getting any money. Drop the charge down to a quid to play. But again I realise there needs to be some sort of reward....er ..er


----------



## Steve Wilkes (Oct 12, 2022)

Crazyface said:



			And, as it doesn't seem to have been addressed, what does CR stand for? Course record? And all this discussion. I've always been a poor reader of rules if they are complicated, I tend to skim read and therefore end up not understanding. So with WHS, I've no idea what is going on. But I will say it has helped my wife to get her handicap down as she does not play in comps, hates them actually, so being able to input scores when we play has been brilliant. And yes, I realise this can be very easily manipulated. The bad thing with WHS is the wild swings in handicaps. It's not just point one anymore. This, I feel, is a bad thing. Also a mate of mine has plummeted to 23. He's never been lower than 27,and I can assure you all, he cannot play to 23.
		
Click to expand...

If his handicap is 23, then he must have played to 23 and better, unless he has only put in 4 cards.


----------



## Backache (Oct 13, 2022)

effayjay said:



			I really don’t see why not.

In horse racing, with professional handicappers, the ultimate aim is to enable multiple dead heats. That doesn’t happen because horses are not machine, neither are golfers. In horse racing they do have divisions because handicapping is done with weight and there is only so much weight a horse can carry ( or how light jockeys can be. In golf there are no such restrictions and there is, as far as I can see, simply no logic to divisions in handicap golf divisions.
		
Click to expand...

Does it really make much sense to have an event of someone trying to break 100 which is essentially a random event against a scratch golfer?


----------



## rulefan (Oct 13, 2022)

Crazyface said:



			And, as it doesn't seem to have been addressed, what does CR stand for? Course record?
		
Click to expand...

Course Rating. Similar to the old SSS.


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 13, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Course Rating. Similar to the old SSS.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks


----------



## Springveldt (Oct 13, 2022)

effayjay said:



			I just don’t understand the logic of competition divisions When playing handicap golf. The very idea of a handicapping system is to allow competitors of differing ability to compete against each other.
		
Click to expand...

In theory yes but it doesn't work out that way. Usually a low handicapper is more stable in their scoring and quite a lot of them have basically reached their potential but higher handicaps consist of the same types of players but also others that are still improving and are capable of shooting much lower than their current handicap.

At my place we use divisions to try and spread the winnings around more of the membership but the name on the board will still be the best net score on the day.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 13, 2022)

Played today on a par 72 course off a 4 handicap and shot 70, (my age 69) for 42 points, came second to a 30 handicapper who had 44 points, he lost 1.8 shots and I lost 1.0 shots.....do you I think the system is fair ?


----------



## wjemather (Oct 13, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			Played today on a par 72 course off a 4 handicap and shot 70, (my age 69) for 42 points, came second to a 30 handicapper who had 44 points, he lost 1.8 shots and I lost 1.0 shots.....do you I think the system is fair ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you wouldn't have an issue with a 5 or 6 handicapper beating you, so why begrudge a 30 handicapper? Surely it's better to simply congratulate them on a great score?
Changes in handicap index are a result of the new 8 best scores, and the 20th score being replaced, not just the most recent.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 13, 2022)

wjemather said:



			I'm guessing you wouldn't have an issue with a 5 or 6 handicapper beating you, so why begrudge a 30 handicapper? Surely it's better to simply congratulate them on a *great score*?
Changes in handicap index are a result of the new 8 best scores, and the 20th score being replaced, not just the most recent.
		
Click to expand...

Its not a great score though, just a great score in relation to a very high handicap. 

I totally get a low guy being annoyed by someone winning when their gross score is 20 shots better, not saying its wrong either - just think being annoyed is allowed.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 13, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Its not a great score though, just a great score in relation to a very high handicap.

I totally get a low guy being annoyed by someone winning when their gross score is 20 shots better, not saying its wrong either - just think being annoyed is allowed. 

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how many times this has been said already, but gross score is utterly irrelevant in a handicap competition.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 13, 2022)

wjemather said:



			I'm not sure how many times this needs to be said, but gross score is utterly irrelevant in a handicap competition.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah cool, helpful. 

Its still annoying when someone off a higher handicap beats you, nothing you say can change the fact it annoys people.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 13, 2022)

wjemather said:



			I'm guessing you wouldn't have an issue with a 5 or 6 handicapper beating you, so why begrudge a 30 handicapper? Surely it's better to simply congratulate them on a great score?
Changes in handicap index are a result of the new 8 best scores, and the 20th score being replaced, not just the most recent.
		
Click to expand...

They can be congratulated, they played well for them. But, that does not automatically mean they deserve the win, well to some anyway. I guess it depends on what every individual believes is "fair", as that is subjective.

I suspect if  a 4 handicapper shoots 42 points, they'd have every right to feel buzzing, and probably don't feel they could have shot much much better on another day. A 30 handicapper would probably also be buzzing. But, there would be no surprise if the round featured at least one blobbed hole, maybe more (certainly more likelihood in comparison to the 4 handicapper). There is more chance the 30 handicapper could realistically believe that, on another day, they could have shot 45, 46, 47, 48 points (and beyond) if it wasn't for a rash decision. And, they may well have shot better than their 44 points before, maybe in casual golf, and so know that they have an amazing score in them.

All of this is based on probability of course, as I've no idea about the individual circumstances of each golfer. The 30 handicapper may be at the peak of their powers, and 44 points is the best score they've made in years. If so, then I think more would consider their win as "fair"


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 13, 2022)

I did congratulate the winner.....
and he told me he had 8 three pointers on the back nine and also missed a 2 foot putt.....

One of the clubs that I am a member of is having there Open next month, they are allowing handicaps up to 54.....
can see the reaction when and if someone over 40 handicap wins.

No sour grapes.....but I came second a few years ago (WHS just started in OZ) to someone who had 51 points on the Saturday,
wiped the first hole on Sunday and had 50 points.....

Name on board......(Gold letter event)


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 13, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			Played today on a par 72 course off a 4 handicap and shot 70, (my age 69) for 42 points, came second to a 30 handicapper who had 44 points, he lost 1.8 shots and I lost 1.0 shots.....do you I think the system is fair ?
		
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that at all. System looks fair there. Beaten by two shot, nice effort.
The handicap adjustment depends on the previous 20, which is a good thing, so no anomaly in the adjustments you both received.


----------



## effayjay (Oct 13, 2022)

At our Club this years handicap knockout final was contested between a 26 handicapper and a 6. Match decided on the 18 th green. The system works.


----------



## IanM (Oct 13, 2022)

effayjay said:



			At our Club this years handicap knockout final was contested between a 26 handicapper and a 6. Match decided on the 18 th green. The system works.
		
Click to expand...

System is fine.   

Application and administration of it varies massively!


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 13, 2022)

effayjay said:



			At our Club this years handicap knockout final was contested between a 26 handicapper and a 6. Match decided on the 18 th green. The system works.
		
Click to expand...

Using one example as a proof. Like it. What would the result have had to have been for you to say it doesn't work?


----------



## effayjay (Oct 13, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Using one example as a proof. Like it. What would the result have had to have been for you to say it doesn't work?
		
Click to expand...

 Given that the best you can do is “ well in practice it just doesn’t work like that” it might be better to offer some logic to your position.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 14, 2022)

effayjay said:



			Given that the best you can do is “ well in practice it just doesn’t work like that” it might be better to offer some logic to your position.
		
Click to expand...

Have you not read these forums before? I didn't feel I needed to type chapter and verse again, and repeat what many have said before. But, at least I didn't take one isolated example, and use that to completely determine whether the system works or not. I ask again, what would the score have been in that match for you to say the system doesn't work?

Why do you even think many clubs have divisions anyway? Is there no logic behind them?


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 14, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Why do you even think many clubs have divisions anyway? Is there no logic behind them?
		
Click to expand...

Clubs having divisions may be misguided, coming from a prejudice without grounding, or, it may be an attempt to solve a different problem, described by many here of the 50 point win. Many clubs dont have that syndrome though. If 40-42 win the majority in some clubs, which seems the case also, then divisions are a bad fix to a problem than should be resolved at its core.
Divisions dont stop 50 points - which should not be happening. They just insulated some from that problem, share around prizes, and reducing the moaning.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 14, 2022)

50 plus point winners......have you ever seen a single figure handicapper score this ?


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 14, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			50 plus point winners......have you ever seen a single figure handicapper score this ?
		
Click to expand...

No. But no handicap should. Or they should be as rare as a hole in one.
My point is clubs should solve their handicapping issues. Not ignore them, but keep lower handicappers calm by insulating them from the problem. The 50 point syndrome, if more prominent in the higher ranges, still suggests a handicap issue for lower hcs too.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 14, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			50 plus point winners......have you ever seen a single figure handicapper score this ?
		
Click to expand...

The actual score is irrelevant - the intent of handicapping systems is to afford each player an equitable chance of winning, not an equitable chance of returning an exceptional nett/Stableford score. If they did the latter, higher handicappers would have virtually no chance of winning.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 14, 2022)

wjemather said:



			The actual score is irrelevant - the intent of handicapping systems is to afford each player an equitable chance of winning, not an equitable chance of returning an exceptional nett/Stableford score. If they did the latter, higher handicappers would have virtually no chance of winning.
		
Click to expand...

So a single figure player who cannot score 50 plus points is tough luck.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 14, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			So a single figure player who cannot score 50 plus points is tough luck.
		
Click to expand...

No. Its correct that he shouldnt score 50pts. The problem is a poorly implemented WHS in some clubs that allows some to score 50.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 14, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			No. Its correct that he shouldnt score 50pts. The problem is a poorly implemented WHS in some clubs that allows some to score 50.
		
Click to expand...

There is no blame to be assigned. There is always the potential for such scores from improving higher handicappers, regardless of handicap system.


----------



## effayjay (Oct 14, 2022)

I do wonder why those who designed the WHS never thought about competition deivisions.
I also wonder why, if competition divisions are necessary, is there is no standard division system.

I can see the argument about improving higher handicappers but in those cases it is only the lower handicappers that benefit.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 14, 2022)

effayjay said:



			I do wonder why those who designed the WHS never thought about competition deivisions.
I also wonder why, if competition divisions are necessary, is there is no standard division system.

I can see the argument about improving higher handicappers but in those cases it is only the lower handicappers that benefit.
		
Click to expand...

My last club used to have a max handicap of 18 in Div 1, everyone else in Div 2. This ended up being a bit comical, as you could have 20-30 in Division 1, and 3-5 in Division 2. Therefore, a few years ago, the max handicap limit for Division 1 was variable, and set specifically for each competition, with the aim of having roughly balanced field sizes for each division.


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 14, 2022)

We have three divisions for medals. They used to be fixed categories but often in winter division 3 would have a disproportionally low number of entrants....so we took advantage of Handicapmasters facility where division sizes are automatically balanced, so that 1/3rd of all entrants are in each division. We pay out exactly the same prizes for Divs 1,2 and 3.

We do not have divisions for Stablefords...they are a free for all.

We find that there is a reasonably even balance of scores/finishing positions across the various handicap groups for stableford, wheras for medals, lower handicaps are more consistent, less likely to NR and more likely to "do well" - note I did not say more likely to win...I'm talking about the general distribution of handicaps v. finishing positions across the results sheet....in medals lower handicappers do better in terms of overall finishing position than higher handicappers....hence the divisions are there to ensure that higher handicappers have a chance of sharing in some of the prize fund.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

It blows my mind that I only got 1 shot yesterday at Hayling and I get 1 shot at my home club.

Courses are absolutely worlds apart


----------



## rulefan (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			It blows my mind that I only got 1 shot yesterday at Hayling and I get 1 shot at my home club.

Courses are absolutely worlds apart 

Click to expand...

It that is an issue, it is Course Rating not WHS. CR was introduced over 10 years before WHS. What were the original SSSs?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			It blows my mind that I only got 1 shot yesterday at Hayling and I get 1 shot at my home club.

Courses are absolutely worlds apart 

Click to expand...

Presumably CR is higher, relative to Par, at Hayling? If so, you can be comforted by the fact that if you were anywhere else in the world outside the UK, you would be playing off a noticeably higher handicap at Hayling.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

rulefan said:



			It that is an issue, it is Course Rating not WHS. CR was introduced over 10 years before WHS. What were the original SSSs?
		
Click to expand...

At my place 68 SSS



Swango1980 said:



			Presumably CR is higher, relative to Par, at Hayling? If so, you can be comforted by the fact that if you were anywhere else in the world outside the UK, you would be playing off a noticeably higher handicap at Hayling.
		
Click to expand...

It just doesn't make sense to me


----------



## Imurg (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Presumably CR is higher, relative to Par, at Hayling? If so, you can be comforted by the fact that if you were anywhere else in the world outside the UK, you would be playing off a noticeably higher handicap at Hayling.
		
Click to expand...

CR off the yellows is 70.1
Par is 71
Slope is 118.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Presumably CR is higher, relative to Par, at Hayling? If so, you can be comforted by the fact that if you were anywhere else in the world outside the UK, you would be playing off a noticeably higher handicap at Hayling.
		
Click to expand...

This is where they have really messed up


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			It blows my mind that I only got 1 shot yesterday at Hayling and I get 1 shot at my home club.

Courses are absolutely worlds apart 

Click to expand...

Thats the beauty of the Worlds Apart Handicap System.


----------



## Neilds (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			It blows my mind that I only got 1 shot yesterday at Hayling and I get 1 shot at my home club.

Courses are absolutely worlds apart 

Click to expand...

Pre WHS you would have had the same amount of shots on every course you played, what are you moaning about?


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 19, 2022)

The system is built and designed for the USA so why is the rest of the world using it, here in OZ we have had to put up with it for many years, and each year it is tweaked so it looks nothing like the original.

Played today where we had a guy play off a 49 handicap and he had 40 points.....it is a joke.

Don't go and get lessons we will just give you more handicap seems to be the rule of thought.


----------



## r0wly86 (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			The system is built and designed for the USA so why is the rest of the world using it, here in OZ we have had to put up with it for many years, and each year it is tweaked so it looks nothing like the original.

Played today where we had a guy play off a 49 handicap and he had 40 points.....it is a joke.

Don't go and get lessons we will just give you more handicap seems to be the rule of thought.
		
Click to expand...

what is so different about golf in the USA compared to the rest of the world that means the system doesn't work?


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			It blows my mind that I only got 1 shot yesterday at Hayling and I get 1 shot at my home club.

*Courses are absolutely worlds apart* 

Click to expand...

And they are rated accordingly.
Par 69, CR 67.1 (whites) and 65.8 (yellows) at home versus par 71, CR 71.4 (whites) and 70.1 (yellows) at Hayling.

As had been said before, course handicap in GB&I tells you nothing about course difficulty.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 19, 2022)

r0wly86 said:



			what is so different about golf in the USA compared to the rest of the world that means the system doesn't work?
		
Click to expand...

The way they rate courses for a start....plus how many cards they enter per year.....
I enter minimum of 120 each year, no joke.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			The system is built and designed for the USA so why is the rest of the world using it, here in OZ we have had to put up with it for many years, and each year it is tweaked so it looks nothing like the original.

Played today where we had a guy play off a 49 handicap and he had 40 points.....it is a joke.

Don't go and get lessons we will just give you more handicap seems to be the rule of thought.
		
Click to expand...

Personally, I still prefer the way you guys do it in Oz than here. Been a while since I read your WHS manual, but from memory you seem to embed 93% into the course handicap (which you call daily handicap). You also include CR-Par within that calculation. So, once you get your Daily Handicap, I'm assuming you can often get on with playing, perhaps unless you are playing a format like Fourball Match Play or another infrequent form of team golf?

Whereas over here, not only is CR-Par not accounted for (which is not a show stopper in stopping the system from working, but adds to confusion when players don't feel they are getting the adjustments they think they need when playing a very hard or easy course), but the course handicap needs to be adjusted by a certain percentage more often than not, except when playing singles match play. So, more often than not, 95% must be factored in (except players don't when playing socially, and then get even more confused when they play a competition and wrongly think they are being penalised if their handicap comes down) as most play singles stableford. Most golfers I know, that don't bother wasting times on forums like these, are still clueless as to why all these different adjustments are made. Many just give up trying to understand, and do what they are told, whereas others grumble and moan, often because they simply don't understand the system.

It could have been made so much more easy to understand, and better implemented, and I think other countries have, at least, done a better job of it.

The allowance of very high handicappers is not really a WHS issue, as that came into the UK pre-WHS (not sure about you guys). Personally, I actually support allowing higher handicaps, as there are many golfers who needed more shots than the previous Max of 28. I think the increase in allowance has made the game much more enjoyable for them, which is a good thing. My only issue is that brand new golfers can be given massively high handicaps with fewer than 20 scores under their belt. I will always firmly believe that, to protect the field, there should be bigger restrictions on handicaps until a player has a full quota of 20 scores under their belt.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			The system is built and designed for the USA so why is the rest of the world using it, here in OZ we have had to put up with it for many years, and each year it is tweaked so it looks nothing like the original.

Played today where we had a guy play off a 49 handicap and he had 40 points.....it is a joke.

Don't go and get lessons we will just give you more handicap seems to be the rule of thought.
		
Click to expand...

The system is designed for golf. Sure, WHS is basically an evolution of the old USGA system that was originally formulated from data collected in the US, but worldwide data has been used since then. Several features of WHS are taken directly from the pre-WHS GA system.

Why shouldn't all ages and abilities be able to have a handicap?

Some players get to scratch or better without ever having a lesson.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			And they are rated accordingly.
Par 69, CR 67.1 (whites) and 65.8 (yellows) at home versus par 71, CR 71.4 (whites) and 70.1 (yellows) at Hayling.

*As had been said before, course handicap in GB&I tells you nothing about course difficulty*.
		
Click to expand...

That is pretty much exactly the point Bdill93 was highlighting. I suspect he thinks they should account for course difficulty, like they do in the rest of the world.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			The way they rate courses for a start....plus how many cards they enter per year.....
I enter minimum of 120 each year, no joke.
		
Click to expand...

Courses are rated using the same system.
So your issue with it is basically that you play too much golf, or others don't play enough.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			Don't go and get lessons we will just give you more handicap seems to be the rule of thought.
		
Click to expand...

''Why should I waste my time practicing when I can just rely on my massively high handicap to help me win''.
And if I don't win, I'll make sure my handicap is even higher next year.
Net comps are rarely won by good players...just the golfer with the wrongest handicap.


----------



## Neilds (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			The system is built and designed for the USA so why is the rest of the world using it, here in OZ we have had to put up with it for many years, and each year it is tweaked so it looks nothing like the original.

Played today where we had a guy play off a 49 handicap and he had 40 points.....it is a joke.

Don't go and get lessons we will just give you more handicap seems to be the rule of thought.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that 40 points is anything excessive.

A 49 handicap though............


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			''Why should I waste my time practicing when I can just rely on my massively high handicap to help me win''.
And if I don't win, I'll make sure my handicap is even higher next year.
Net comps are rarely won by good players...just the golfer with the wrongest handicap.
		
Click to expand...

Utter rubbish.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			That is pretty much exactly the point Bdill93 was highlighting. I suspect he thinks they should account for course difficulty, like they do in the rest of the world.
		
Click to expand...

It never did before WHS, which is the reason CONGU didn't adopt it (CR-par) with WHS. That so many people have difficulty in understanding something that hasn't changed just highlights how few actually understood SSS and CSS (and par).


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			It never did before WHS, which is the reason CONGU didn't adopt it (CR-par) with WHS. That so many people have difficulty in understanding something that hasn't changed just highlights how few actually understood SSS and CSS (and par).
		
Click to expand...

Nobody says the previous system was perfect either.

However, one of the huge marketing points of WHS was "your handicap will change from course to course based on difficulty". That statement was hugely misleading. Handicap was only adjusted based on relative difficulty to other golfers of different ability, but that is too hard for most regular golfers to really get their head around. However, going to very hard and easy courses, most golfers would have expected to see noticeable changes. Golfers of all abilities. They didn't, and they were misled by the marketing.

Everywhere else in the world got what we thought we were getting though.

If the argument is "well, that is what we did before", then why didn't we just stick to what we did before then, completely?


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Pre WHS you would have had the same amount of shots on every course you played, what are you moaning about? 

Click to expand...

I'm moaning because its bull....

My course is easy, if handicaps were truly portable, when playing somewhere harder you should get more shots. Plain and simple. If WHS hasn't addressed this, which is clearly hasn't, what was the point in the first place?

Gemma (I think that was her name) from England Golf when on the rick shiels pod described it as such, but in reality it doesn't work. My course is almost 600 yards shorter and nowhere near as challenging as Hayling was, but apparently I should be able to play to 12 at both? Absolutely on crack thinking that.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Nobody says the previous system was perfect either.

However, one of the huge marketing points of WHS was "your handicap will change from course to course based on difficulty". That statement was hugely misleading. Handicap was only adjusted based on relative difficulty to other golfers of different ability, but that is too hard for most regular golfers to really get their head around. However, going to very hard and easy courses, most golfers would have expected to see noticeable changes. Golfers of all abilities. They didn't, and they were misled by the marketing.

Everywhere else in the world got what we thought we were getting though.

If the argument is "well, that is what we did before", then why didn't we just stick to what we did before then, completely?
		
Click to expand...

THANK YOU!!!

Not just me and you've worded it better than I could.

Its simply not a portable handicap and it was supposed to be

I also understand all the ideas behind CSS, SSS and CR etc thanks to this thread - but none of the responses actually tell me why I don't get more shots at a tougher course, like you should do. 

A 12 handicapper from my club would be on par with a 16 at most I reckon, if not worse.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 19, 2022)

P.S. I hate the F.....ing system but hey i"m on single figures and the majority of us in OZ are the same.
I new the first time it came out and we went and played another course, everyone from my club got 2 - 3 extra shots, I got zero, 
so I had to give them 2 - 3 shots then on our home course.....how is that fair ?


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			P.S. I hate the F.....ing system but hey i"m on single figures and the majority of us in OZ are the same.
I new the first time it came out and we went and played another course, everyone from my club got 2 - 3 extra shots, I got zero,
so I had to give them 2 - 3 shots then on our home course.....how is that fair ?
		
Click to expand...

I'd been off 5 for years and and used to reg go up and down between 4 and 5, when it changed they cocked up my home club as I'd had winter membership at the other club in Nairn while they did our course changes. Played a dozen or so NQ comps and was given 1.8🤣 . Luckily when it was sorted at my club down to 3.4, down 2 shots😉😂


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			THANK YOU!!!

Not just me and you've worded it better than I could.

Its simply not a portable handicap and it was supposed to be

I also understand all the ideas behind CSS, SSS and CR etc thanks to this thread - but none of the responses actually tell me why I don't get more shots at a tougher course, like you should do.

A 12 handicapper from my club would be on par with a 16 at most I reckon, if not worse.
		
Click to expand...

Nope sorry, your playing handicap does adjust to different courses under WHS, and it's utter BS. 

Course ratings are different for every course (The old SSS) and your handicap was worked out in relation to that rather than par, ergo your handicap should have been equal anywhere you went because everyone plays to their home course SSS not par.

The problem was SSS was wrong in many cases, *but* it's the only part of WHS that hasn't changed (OK a little bit in that the decimal point is now shown on CR). There was nothing wrong with the handicap system, only course ratings, the glaring methodology erros needs to be reviewed, but they won't be as they don;t seem to have any clue that the issue is there rather than playing handicaps.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			I'm moaning because its bull....

My course is easy, if handicaps were truly portable, when *playing somewhere harder you should get more shots*. Plain and simple. If WHS hasn't addressed this, which is clearly hasn't, what was the point in the first place?

Gemma (I think that was her name) from England Golf when on the rick shiels pod described it as such, but in reality it doesn't work. My course is almost 600 yards shorter and nowhere near as challenging as Hayling was, but apparently *I should be able to play to 12 at both*? Absolutely on crack thinking that.
		
Click to expand...

You _do _get more strokes* relative to the Course Rating*.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			P.S. I hate the F.....ing system but hey i"m on single figures and the majority of us in OZ are the same.
I new the first time it came out and we went and played another course, everyone from my club got 2 - 3 extra shots, I got zero,
so I had to give them 2 - 3 shots then on our home course.....how is that fair ?
		
Click to expand...

It's the old system that gave lower handicappers a significant advantage. It's the old system that wasn't "fair".


----------



## bobmac (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			It's the old system that gave lower handicappers a significant advantage. It's the old system that wasn't "fair".
		
Click to expand...

Now look at who is talking rubbish


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			You _do _get more strokes* relative to the Course Rating*.
		
Click to expand...

Par 69, CR 67.1 (whites) and 65.8 (yellows) at home versus par 71, CR 71.4 (whites) and 70.1 (yellows) at Hayling. 

So Haylings Yellows are 3 shots harder than our whites going by CR

I play off 13 at Raven (Course Handicap) off the whites

I played off 13 at Hayling off the yellows.

Where are the 3 shots going if they aren't being added to my course handicap? Are you going to tell me its something to do with a 67 rated course with a 69 par?


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Nope sorry, your playing handicap does adjust to different courses under WHS, and it's utter BS.

Course ratings are different for every course (The old SSS) and your handicap was worked out in relation to that rather than par, ergo your handicap should have been equal anywhere you went because everyone plays to their home course SSS not par.

The problem was SSS was wrong in many cases, *but* it's the only part of WHS that hasn't changed (OK a little bit in that the decimal point is now shown on CR). There was nothing wrong with the handicap system, only course ratings, the glaring methodology erros needs to be reviewed, but they won't be as they don;t seem to have any clue that the issue is there rather than playing handicaps.
		
Click to expand...

SSS was not "wrong"; like Course Rating, it simply only accounted for scratch golfers. Slope accounts for higher handicappers and levels the playing field - this levelling is the root of most gripes by lower handicappers.

The old handicap system was designed in and for a pre-technology age and as a result, while functional, had many things wrong with it and required constant intervention from handicap secretaries.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			Now look at who is talking rubbish  

Click to expand...

Given your total and utter lack of knowledge on the subject, and complete aversion to learning anything about it, I'm at a loss to understand why you insist on commenting (mostly just making snide remarks) on these threads.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Par 69, CR 67.1 (whites) and 65.8 (yellows) at home versus par 71, CR 71.4 (whites) and 70.1 (yellows) at Hayling.

So Haylings Yellows are 3 shots harder than our whites going by CR

I play off 13 at Raven (Course Handicap) off the whites

I played off 13 at Hayling off the yellows.

Where are the 3 shots going if they aren't being added to my course handicap? Are you going to tell me its something to do with a 67 rated course with a 69 par?
		
Click to expand...

Your 'play to handicap' nett score is 67 off the whites at home and 70 off the yellows at Hayling - 3 strokes difference.

Your equivalent Stableford score (which takes par into account) would be 38 off the whites at home and 37 off the yellows at Hayling - 1 point difference.

If the Course Handicap was adjusted like it is outside GB&I, your CH would be 1.9 lower (than now) at home and 0.9 lower at Hayling - 1 stroke difference. Your 'play to handicap' nett score would then be par and Stableford 36 at all courses.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Given your total and utter lack of knowledge on the subject, and complete aversion to learning anything about it, I'm at a loss to understand why you insist on commenting (mostly just making snide remarks) on these threads.
		
Click to expand...

Just one last question... what is your handicap?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			Just one last question... what is your handicap?
		
Click to expand...

I think his Index is 54.0 ..... only jesting


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			Just one last question... what is your handicap?
		
Click to expand...

0.4


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I think his Index is 54.0 ..... only jesting 

Click to expand...

I am playing off 2 tomorrow (truthfully) but hopefully am dropping a flag and will go out to 10....(jesting)


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Your 'play to handicap' nett score is 67 off the whites at home and 70 off the yellows at Hayling - 3 strokes difference.

Your equivalent Stableford score (which takes par into account) would be 38 off the whites at home and 37 off the yellows at Hayling - 1 point difference.

If the Course Handicap was adjusted like it is outside GB&I, your CH would be 1.9 lower (than now) at home and 0.9 lower at Hayling - 1 stroke difference. Your 'play to handicap' nett score would then be par and Stableford 36 at all courses.
		
Click to expand...

I don't care about stableford scores etc - I know my course is 38 to handicap,

So what you've told me is, my course handicap at Raven should be lower? Would that in turn eventually raise my HI? Because I cant play much lower than I am... certainly couldn't play to 11.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			So what you've told me is, my course handicap at Raven should be lower? Would that in turn eventually raise my HI? Because I cant play much lower than I am... certainly couldn't play to 11.
		
Click to expand...

If we changed to use the same calculation as outside GB&I (which includes the "Course Rating - Par" adjustment), your Course Handicap at home would (most likely) be 2 strokes lower than it is now, so 11 from the whites (the actual difference is 1.9, so it could be just 1 stroke lower for some indexes - due to rounding).

The Handicap Index calculation is the same (using your adjusted gross relative to CR and adjusted for Slope - course handicap and par are irrelevant other than for nett double bogey adjustments), so your HI would be the same.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			0.4
		
Click to expand...

You of all people should know how much work and practice is involved to get that good, you must have experienced the times when you play well and win nothing and yet you insist that it's the old system that gave lower handicappers a significant advantage ???
I have a small trophy cabinet that contains mostly scratch trophies which proves that is not the case.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			I don't care about stableford scores etc - I know my course is 38 to handicap,

So what you've told me is, my course handicap at Raven should be lower? Would that in turn eventually raise my HI? Because I cant play much lower than I am... certainly couldn't play to 11.
		
Click to expand...

I think the key issue is that, pre WHS, players needed to compare their score to SSS (CSS). So some courses 36 points was to handicap (or nett par, forgetting scores worse than nett double for now), others 37, 38 39, etc and others 35, 34, 32. The "harder" courses meant that a lower score (points) would be required to play to handicap.

With WHS, it is still exactly the same, except SSS is now called CR.

This is all fine, and from a technical stand point there is not an issue (unless you are like BB and simply say SSS and CR are all wrong, but I'll let him argue that one because I'm not sure how he can defend that stance).

However, pre WHS and post WHS, the regular golfer doesn't really get that often. It is so much easier to compare their scores to the Par of the Course / 36 Stableford points in medal / stableford play. And, they could do this if CR-Par was also factored into the equation, like across the rest of the world. In my opinion, sadly they did not do this over here, and so golfers still have to be told they are comparing their score to CR, often with the same confusion on their part as pre WHS.


----------



## fundy (Oct 19, 2022)

what does the W stand for in WHS?


----------



## bobmac (Oct 19, 2022)

fundy said:



			what does the W stand for in WHS?
		
Click to expand...

Whatever


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			You of all people should know how much work and practice is involved to get that good, you must have experienced the times when you play well and win nothing and yet you insist that it's the old system that gave lower handicappers a significant advantage ???
I have a small trophy cabinet that contains mostly scratch trophies which proves that is not the case.
		
Click to expand...

Handicap systems aren't there to reward practice or talent; they are simply there to allow people of different abilities to compete equitably.
It's almost impossible to remove systemic bias completely, but the old system heavily favoured lower handicappers - all data analysis has clearly shown that.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Handicap systems aren't there to reward practice or talent; they are simply there to allow people of different abilities to compete equitably.
		
Click to expand...

No they are not, they are there to help people win who can't be bothered to practice.



wjemather said:



			It's almost impossible to remove systemic bias completely, but the old system heavily favoured lower handicappers - all data analysis has clearly shown that.
		
Click to expand...

Ah...... good old data analysis.
Don't you know that the majority of statistics are never checked?

I gave up playing amateur golf in 2004 because the handicap system favoured the mid-to high handicaps. Now that I have retired from the PGA and playing full time, I have no intention in joining a handicap system that allows such high handicaps, so you are right about one thing..... I have no interest in learning the WHS handbook.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Par 69, CR 67.1 (whites) and 65.8 (yellows) at home versus par 71, CR 71.4 (whites) and 70.1 (yellows) at Hayling.

So Haylings Yellows are 3 shots harder than our whites going by CR

I play off 13 at Raven (Course Handicap) off the whites

I played off 13 at Hayling off the yellows.

Where are the 3 shots going if they aren't being added to my course handicap? Are you going to tell me its something to do with a 67 rated course with a 69 par?
		
Click to expand...

They're added to your gross score. At the 67.1 course, you were expected to shoot 80 in old money. At the 71.4 course you'd have been expected to shoot 84. 

Now instead your handicap will move even though you're playing to a rated course that is meant to show difficulty already.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			If we changed to use the same calculation as outside GB&I (which includes the "Course Rating - Par" adjustment), your Course Handicap at home would (most likely) be 2 strokes lower than it is now, so 11 from the whites (the actual difference is 1.9, so it could be just 1 stroke lower for some indexes - due to rounding).

The Handicap Index calculation is the same (using your adjusted gross relative to CR and adjusted for Slope - course handicap and par are irrelevant other than for nett double bogey adjustments), so your HI would be the same.
		
Click to expand...

But with this adjustment surely it would mean a score of 83 moved from being a score diff of say 14 to 15.9? 

Side note - not using accurate data with this question, just wondering as it'd be laughable me being off single figures anywhere  83 is actually about a 16 at our place


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			They're added to your gross score. At the 67.1 course, you were expected to shoot 80 in old money. At the 71.4 course you'd have been expected to shoot 84.

Now instead your handicap will move even though you're playing to a rated course that is meant to show difficulty already.
		
Click to expand...

So the handicaps aren't portable at all in current form then.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			So the handicaps aren't portable at all in current form then.
		
Click to expand...

To me they are a farce. The worst of it is folks don't know what their handicap is when they turn up for an open somewhere.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			Played today where we had a guy play off a 49 handicap and he had 40 points.....it is a joke.

Don't go and get lessons we will just give you more handicap seems to be the rule of thought.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, thats exactly the point of, and strength of, the handicap system. You appear to be getting the point, that it doesnt require you to get lessons, and it will give you more shots if you need them, but missing the point that this is exactly what it is designed to do, and what we want it to do. Its the point of handicapping. Lessons or skill level are irrelevant.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			But with this adjustment surely it would mean a score of 83 moved from being a score diff of say 14 to 15.9?
		
Click to expand...

The Score Differential is (almost always*) the same:

_Score Differential = (Adjusted Gross - Course Rating - PCC adjustment) x (113 / Slope Rating)_​
Par and course handicap are not (directly*) part of this calculation.
​* The only way the SD would be different is if the adjusted gross were affected by nett double bogey adjustments on the holes where fewer/more strokes were received.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			So the handicaps aren't portable at all in current form then.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, they are entirely portable - having a Handicap Index calculated using the same methodology (i.e. same course rating system, same differential calculations, etc.) is the only requirement for this to be true, and that is what WHS provides.

In a competition, every player uses the Course Handicap (and Playing Handicap) calculations of the jurisdiction they are in, regardless of how they might do it at home.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			No they are not, they are there to help people win who can't be bothered to practice.
		
Click to expand...

This really is nonsense, and shows a total misunderstanding of the purpose of a handicap system.
It is nothing to do with practice, golf level, or improvement/disimprovement. It is about one score, on one day, relative to a handicap.


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			The Score Differential is (almost always*) the same:

_Score Differential = (Adjusted Gross - Course Rating - PCC adjustment) x (113 / Slope Rating)_​
Par and course handicap are not (directly*) part of this calculation.
​* The only way the SD would be different is if the adjusted gross were affected by nett double bogey adjustments on the holes where fewer/more strokes were received.
		
Click to expand...

You've lost me even more now!  Thought we were getting somewhere... I appreciate your continued responses btw - not trying to argue with you - this just doesn't seem to make sense to me at all. 

So my course is easier than all these other places to play - plain and simple and the stats agree - we can both agree on this.

With correct "portable handicaps" in place - my HI would go down not up? 

Reversed I see this making sense - a tougher home course player could shoot +3 but still be 0 score diff, but at my place surely the score diffs should increase and not decrease?


----------



## bobmac (Oct 19, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Lessons or skill level are irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

Skill levels are irrelevant in a sport....got you 



Backsticks said:



			This really is nonsense, and shows a total misunderstanding of the purpose of a handicap system.
It is nothing to do with practice, golf level, or improvement/disimprovement. It is about one score, on one day, relative to a handicap.
		
Click to expand...

And the person with the wrongest handicap wins.
Just out of interest, if the system works so well, why do comps need divisions?


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			Skill levels are irrelevant in a sport....got you 



And the person with the wrongest handicap wins.
Just out of interest, if the system works so well, why do comps need divisions?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, skill level is irrelevant. Performance in one round, relative to a slill level, is what the competition is.
You are thinking of gross competition, not net handicapped competition.
They are two different things.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			Skill levels are irrelevant in a sport....got you 



And the person with the wrongest handicap wins.
Just out of interest, if the system works so well, why do comps need divisions?
		
Click to expand...

No, the person who plays best relative to their handicap wins.

Who says competitions need divisions ?


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			With correct "portable handicaps" in place - my HI would go down not up?

Reversed I see this making sense - a tougher home course player could shoot +3 but still be 0 score diff, but at my place surely the score diffs should increase and not decrease?
		
Click to expand...

No, your Handicap Index would be the same. It is this that is portable.

Course Handicaps are not portable, as they are specific to the course and tees being played.

There are two different methods for using the Handicap Index to calculate Course Handicaps - one in GB&I, and the other (pretty much) everywhere else. With the RoW method, the difference between courses can sometimes be more noticeable because it normalises the Course Handicap to be relative to Par, rather than the Course Rating.

This may help (or may further confuse!)...

The perceived difficulty of a course is commonly relative to par, but for handicapping, par is actually irrelevant. For example, take two 250 yard holes, identical in every way except one is a par 3 and the other a par 4. For handicapping they are both rated the same - so equal difficulty - but the natural perception is that the par 3 is difficult and the par 4 easy, even though they are the same hole. Extending this to a course of 18 identical holes, it's hopefully easier to see why the same score would result in the same differential. The same applies whether or not you receive a stroke on some holes (unless nett double bogeys come into play).


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



*No, your Handicap Index would be the same.* It is this that is portable.

Course Handicaps are not portable, as they are specific to the course and tees being played.

There are two different methods for using the Handicap Index to calculate Course Handicaps - one in GB&I, and the other (pretty much) everywhere else. With the RoW method, the difference between courses can sometimes be more noticeable because it normalises the Course Handicap to be relative to Par, rather than the Course Rating.

This may help (or may further confuse!)...

The perceived difficulty of a course is commonly relative to par, but for handicapping, par is actually irrelevant. For example, take two 250 yard holes, identical in every way except one is a par 3 and the other a par 4. For handicapping they are both rated the same - so equal difficulty - but the natural perception is that the par 3 is difficult and the par 4 easy, even though they are the same hole. Extending this to a course of 18 identical holes, it's hopefully easier to see why the same score would result in the same differential. The same applies whether or not you receive a stroke on some holes (unless nett double bogeys come into play).
		
Click to expand...

Further confused.....

Im going to just give up and continue to moan that I deserve more shots... I know that if I joined another course locally that my handicap would go upwards and not downwards with the same performances I put in at Raven - all is not right here!


----------



## sunshine (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			The perceived difficulty of a course is commonly relative to par, but for handicapping, par is actually irrelevant. For example, take two 250 yard holes, identical in every way except one is a par 3 and the other a par 4. For handicapping they are both rated the same - so equal difficulty - but the natural perception is that the par 3 is difficult and the par 4 easy, even though they are the same hole. Extending this to a course of 18 identical holes, it's hopefully easier to see why the same score would result in the same differential. The same applies whether or not you receive a stroke on some holes (unless nett double bogeys come into play).
		
Click to expand...

This is a good point, but let let's say I expect to make a 4 on that 250 yard hole. Logically, I should get a shot if it's a par 3 but not if it's a par 4. Extending it to 18 identical holes my handicap should be 18 on the par 54 course and scratch on the par 72 course. But the system doesn't work that way.


----------



## Steve Wilkes (Oct 19, 2022)

sunshine said:



			This is a good point, but let let's say I expect to make a 4 on that 250 yard hole. Logically, I should get a shot if it's a par 3 but not if it's a par 4. Extending it to 18 identical holes my handicap should be 18 on the par 54 course and scratch on the par 72 course. But the system doesn't work that way.
		
Click to expand...

If playing outside England, you would get 18 shots if all par 3s and 0 shots if all par 4s, it's a shame us English didn't adopt the system as meant CR-Par, not sure what the reason was behind this.
Also whatever gross score you played to whether par 54 or 72 would result in the same Handicap Index


----------



## OldMate (Oct 19, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			The way they rate courses for a start....plus how many cards they enter per year.....
I enter minimum of 120 each year, no joke.
		
Click to expand...

Hi AussieKB - how do you manage to enter so many per year? I was based out there many years ago and it was strictly comp scores only. I've asked mates there (all playing in Queensland) and they reckon even post-WHS they are only able to enter competition scores and not general play/non-comp rounds. Edit - I guess maybe you're just managing to consistently enter multiple comps weekly?


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

sunshine said:



			This is a good point, but let let's say I expect to make a 4 on that 250 yard hole. Logically, I should get a shot if it's a par 3 but not if it's a par 4. Extending it to 18 identical holes my handicap should be 18 on the par 54 course and scratch on the par 72 course. But the system doesn't work that way.
		
Click to expand...

Whether you get a stroke at any given hole depends on your Course Handicap and the Stroke Index of the hole.
If Stroke Indexes are set per WHS guidance (i.e. for stroke play, e.g. Stableford), I would expect that same hole to have a much lower stroke index as a par 3 than it would as a par 4.
However, if Stroke Indexes are set for match play (which many courses still are), I'd expect the stroke index of the hole to be the same because par is then irrelevant.

As Steve has said, the second part relates to the adoption of CR-Par in the course handicap calculation, which CONGU did not do. However, it's unlikely that such an extreme example exists - the differential between par and Course Rating is not often more than 4, and commonly less than 2, so the impact on Handicap Indexes (due to fewer/more nett double bogey adjustments) is insignificant.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

OldMate said:



			Hi AussieKB - how do you manage to enter so many per year? I was based out there many years ago and it was strictly comp scores only. I've asked mates there (all playing in Queensland) and they reckon even post-WHS they are only able to enter competition scores and not general play/non-comp rounds. Edit - I guess maybe you're just managing to consistently enter multiple comps weekly?
		
Click to expand...

AussieKB will of course give his definitive answer.

Just looking at the Golf Australia website, "Item 6. Optional Handicapping of pre-nominated social rounds" says:

"Social scores may be used for handicapping if the player's home club has chosen to allow the use of social scores, and if the player has nominated prior to starting a round that it is to count for handicap purposes. Otherwise, social scores will not be permitted for handicap purposes"

It is an interesting extract, and implies that clubs in Oz must be much more reluctant in allowing social scores?


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 19, 2022)

bobmac said:



			so you are right about one thing..... I have no interest in learning the WHS handbook.
		
Click to expand...

Along with 99.9% of golfers throughout the UK probably.  In the same way the vast majority are not interested in learning the Rules of Golf thoroughly.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 19, 2022)

Fred and Bob play golf. 
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?


----------



## Bdill93 (Oct 19, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?
		
Click to expand...

I am Fred.

Hayling was bobs track....


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?
		
Click to expand...

It does, but sadly Fred and Bob make the mistake of not comparing their scores to Course Rating, and instead compare to Par. So, the WHS authority in this country would blame Fred and Bob for being ignorant of this.

In the real world, however, Fred and Bob are thinking in a logical manner. Most golfers without an in depth knowledge of the Rules of handicapping would compare their score to the Par on the card. In fact, I'd say a good amount of golfers with an in depth knowledge of WHS would still like to think like Fred and Bob (e.g. me). Therefore, the rest of the world made WHS more friendly for Fred and Bob, and factored in CR-Par. This was not to the detriment of the system, as ultimately Index is still calculated in the same way regardless. Sadly, we decided against it. Because apparently we didn't do it before (despite the fact one of the biggest misunderstandings pre-WHS was this very reason, and we could have dealt with that when moving over to WHS).


----------



## woofers (Oct 19, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?
		
Click to expand...

It probably does through the course slope ratings (which you haven’t mentioned). I expect Bob would “get” less than 9 shots at Fred’s course, and Fred would “get“ more than 9 shots at Bob‘s course. Using the examples you have given I doubt that their Handicap Indices would be identical.
The scenario you quote was very much the case under UHS.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			That is pretty much exactly the point Bdill93 was highlighting. I suspect he thinks they should account for course difficulty, like they do in the rest of the world.
		
Click to expand...

How does including (CR-Par) tell you anything about course difficulty?
It only tells you if you got 36 points in a stableford you played to par. Providing there were no blow up holes in your medal round


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How does including (CR-Par) tell you anything about course difficulty?
		
Click to expand...

I'm don't want to go through this with you again. I am sure you have asked the exact same before, and I went to great effort to explain.

I appreciate, for example, how a 250 yard hole is of the same overall "difficulty" regardless of being a par 3 or 4. However, perhaps you do not appreciate a golfer would probably consider a 250 yard par 3 difficult, and a 250 yard par 4 easy? 

It is how one defines difficulty, which is essentially subjective. I imagine most golfers think like me, but it seems like the handicap boffins in this country consider us fools?

But then, were the rest of the world wrong to include CR-Par?


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I'm don't want to go through this with you again. I am sure you have asked the exact same before, and I went to great effort to explain.

I appreciate, for example, how a 250 yard hole is of the same overall "difficulty" regardless of being a par 3 or 4. However, perhaps you do not appreciate a golfer would probably consider a 250 yard par 3 difficult, and a 250 yard par 4 easy?

It is how one defines difficulty, which is essentially subjective. I imagine most golfers think like me, but it seems like the handicap boffins in this country consider us fools?

But then, were the rest of the world wrong to include CR-Par?
		
Click to expand...

More a case of it being 6 of one half dozen of the other. The bottom line is the same. CR-par might ostensibly seem needed to some, but that is more an illusion. The decision to skip it here is perfectly valid, in an attempt to simplify matters. Unfortunately the different implementation in itself, seems to have added more fog than it intended to clear, simply by being different.

The score is not influenced by the perceived difficulty. The golfers score is determined by the number shots he hits - only.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 19, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How does including (CR-Par) tell you anything about course difficulty?
		
Click to expand...

You really can't tell?


----------



## sunshine (Oct 19, 2022)

woofers said:



			It probably does through the course slope ratings (which you haven’t mentioned). I expect Bob would “get” less than 9 shots at Fred’s course, and Fred would “get“ more than 9 shots at Bob‘s course. Using the examples you have given I doubt that their Handicap Indices would be identical.
The scenario you quote was very much the case under UHS.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it definitely was the case under the old congu system, but it hasn't changed under WHS.

Slope isn't a measure of difficulty, rather relative difficulty compared to a different handicap. As WJEMather pointed out, difference between par and CR is commonly less than 2, so in my example both players have a HI of 9 even though one of them is much better than the other.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			More a case of it being 6 of one half dozen of the other. The bottom line is the same. CR-par might ostensibly seem needed to some, but that is more an illusion. The decision to skip it here is perfectly valid, in an attempt to simplify matters. Unfortunately the different implementation in itself, seems to have added more fog than it intended to clear, simply by being different.

The score is not influenced by the perceived difficulty. The golfers score is determined by the number shots he hits - only.
		
Click to expand...

Firstly, it doesn't simply matters. I'd be confident most golfers compare scores to par, and I'd even imagine most do not even know what Course Rating is. If a player had an Index of 0.0, I'd imagine they would be happy if their course rating was 4 at Wentworth (no idea what CR-Par is, so just guessing) and -3 at some "easy" course. It would seem logical, even if they were completely unaware of the calculations.

Playing off 0.0 everywhere is confusing to many, and doesn't simplify matters.

Secondly, the different implementation hasn't added fog generally. How many UK golfers have any idea how WHS has been implemented elsewhere in the world? I'd imagine most blissfully think it is exactly the same everywhere. However, only for those that do know the different implementation, it seems reasonable to ask why the UK has taken a different approach to everywhere else in the world in this respect. I suppose it could be called fog, in the sense there were maybe some foggy brains in the UK when they made that decision


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 19, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?
		
Click to expand...

It does. The problem you present is flawed.

First, we have to remove the playing styles of the two players. No hc system will account for that. Only the total scores counts. (Lee Trevino couldnt play Augusta, but that didnt mean he wasnt multi-major winning standard of golfer).

We must also exclude home course familiarity. That is simply a disadvantage of playing an unknown course.

But moving to what I think is your core question, Bob and Freds 9hc are both derived based on their home course CRs. So both ARE 9s. If I understand you, you regard Fred as a less capable 9 than Bob. That is the flaw in the thinking. Playing each others courses will not have them score as you describe - they will have the same score (all else being equal) !


----------



## rulefan (Oct 19, 2022)

sunshine said:



			You really can't tell?
		
Click to expand...

Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.
		
Click to expand...

Not strictly true. Par does have a definition after all. It is not arbitrary


----------



## IanM (Oct 19, 2022)

course


rulefan said:



			Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing?

Why do you think that?    It tells me several things.  Have you ever played golf?  I only ask as your reply is a suprise.


----------



## D-S (Oct 19, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.
		
Click to expand...

I fully agree, however, like it or not, par is the standard by which almost everyone measures their performance. How often do you see here people saying  I or he/she shot x beneath the Course Rating? - never. You always see x off 21 shot 6 under or scored 45 points. Just see almost every statement on performance on this forum or in any UK clubhouse.

Par although flawed is the shorthand of handicap golf - it is for this reason that it should be taken into account in Course Handicap using CR-Par as the rest of the world does.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 19, 2022)

IanM said:



			course


Nothing?

Why do you think that?    It tells me several things.  Have you ever played golf?  I only ask as your reply is a suprise.
		
Click to expand...

Given par doesn't tell us whether a hole is 240 yards or 490 yards long (or anywhere in between), how much shorter than 260 yards it is, or longer than 450 yards, it's certainly not telling us anything useful.

What is it telling you?


----------



## IanM (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Given par doesn't tell us whether a hole is 240 yards or 490 yards long (or anywhere in between), how much shorter than 260 yards it is, or longer than 450 yards, it's certainly not telling us anything useful.

What is it telling you?
		
Click to expand...

Your mate says it tells you NOTHING!!

If you think that, you've never played Stableford for starters!  I could go on, but there's no point.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Given par doesn't tell us whether a hole is 240 yards or 490 yards long (or anywhere in between), how much shorter than 260 yards it is, or longer than 450 yards, it's certainly not telling us anything useful.

What is it telling you?
		
Click to expand...

It tells me what score I need to get  before I am capped at nett double bogey for starters.

If I see the next hole is a par 5, I know I probably won't reach the green in 1. If it is a par 3, I'd like to think I have a chance to get on in 1. If the par 3 is 100 yards, I might consider it an easy par 3. If it is 230 yards, a difficult par 3.


----------



## IanM (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			It tells me what score I need to get  before I am capped at nett double bogey for starters.

If I see the next hole is a par 5, I know I probably won't reach the green in 1. If it is a par 3, I'd like to think I have a chance to get on in 1. If the par 3 is 100 yards, I might consider it an easy par 3. If it is 230 yards, a difficult par 3.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, but can you quote Decision 15.1.4.6 without looking it up?


----------



## rulefan (Oct 19, 2022)

IanM said:



			course


Nothing?

Why do you think that?    It tells me several things.  Have you ever played golf?  I only ask as your reply is a suprise.
		
Click to expand...

My comment related to difficulty which was mentioned in the leadup to my post. To make it clear. Par tells you nothing about difficulty.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 19, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			It tells me what score I need to get  before I am capped at nett double bogey for starters.

If I see the next hole is a par 5, I know I probably won't reach the green in 1. If it is a par 3, I'd like to think I have a chance to get on in 1. If the par 3 is 100 yards, I might consider it an easy par 3. If it is 230 yards, a difficult par 3.
		
Click to expand...

The posts were in the context of (CR-Par). In this case what does par tell you about the course?


----------



## IanM (Oct 19, 2022)

rulefan said:



			My comment related to difficulty which was mentioned in the leadup to my post. To make it clear. Par tells you nothing about difficulty.
		
Click to expand...

ah, excuse me having the temerity to reply based on the words in the posting, rather than what you thought you meant

Is this why none of the people with “Rules“ in their screen name EVER show up at meets?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 19, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The posts were in the context of (CR-Par). In this case what does par tell you about the course?
		
Click to expand...

You do realise the flaw in your argument here?

Had I said we should get rid of CR, and just focus on par, then you would be 100% correct in your argument.

The importance is the combination of both, CR-Par. Both feature in the equation, neither in isolation. 

The rest of the world at least get it.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 19, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.
		
Click to expand...

Yes this means nothing at all


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 19, 2022)

OldMate said:



			Hi AussieKB - how do you manage to enter so many per year? I was based out there many years ago and it was strictly comp scores only. I've asked mates there (all playing in Queensland) and they reckon even post-WHS they are only able to enter competition scores and not general play/non-comp rounds. Edit - I guess maybe you're just managing to consistently enter multiple comps weekly?
		
Click to expand...

I am a member of two clubs, play midweek comps at both (called scroungers) Wednesday and Thursday, then Saturday comp at one of them, plus I play in our veterans for the South West of OZ, (largest in OZ) they playing 26-30 times a year mostly Monday or Tuesday.

I also play in Opens which are Sat/Sun, so quite easily well over 120.

Plus our weather makes it possible, as play all year, most of our Majors (club champs) are held in our winter months.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 20, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?
		
Click to expand...

What's par got to do with it? If Fred's course is a short par 72, it's unlikely that knocking it round in 9 over par every week will give him a handicap of 9, likely much higher than that. Similarly Bob's handicap is probably lower. 

Also your hypoithetical doesn't account for the individual, Fred's game sounds like it suits the type of course he plays. My two courses for example I score gross lower on what the CR syas is the harder course, so that can never be taken into account


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 20, 2022)

woofers said:



			It probably does through the course slope ratings (which you haven’t mentioned). I expect Bob would “get” less than 9 shots at Fred’s course, and Fred would “get“ more than 9 shots at Bob‘s course. Using the examples you have given I doubt that their Handicap Indices would be identical.
*The scenario you quote was very much the case under UHS*.
		
Click to expand...

It very much was not, SSS took care of it.  Fred by the sounds of it is playing a course with an SSS of maybe 70 or 69, and Bob is playing a 74 or 75. likely Fred was off maybe 12 and Bob off 6 or 7


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 20, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Yes it definitely was the case under the old congu system, but it hasn't changed under WHS.

Slope isn't a measure of difficulty, rather relative difficulty compared to a different handicap. As WJEMather pointed out, *difference between par and CR is commonly less than 2*, so in my example both players have a HI of 9 even though one of them is much better than the other.
		
Click to expand...

Not that commonly, plenty of 3 or more either way, but in your example CR could be 69 or 70 for the first player, and 74 or 75 for the second, quite easily they could be 6 shots different in handicap. You used a pretty extreme hypothetical without considering real world considerations, namley course rating


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			What's par got to do with it? If Fred's course is a short par 72, it's unlikely that knocking it round in 9 over par every week will give him a handicap of 9, likely much higher than that. Similarly Bob's handicap is probably lower. 

Also your hypoithetical doesn't account for the individual, Fred's game sounds like it suits the type of course he plays. My two courses for example I score gross lower on what the CR syas is the harder course, so that can never be taken into account
		
Click to expand...

When I read that first line, I imagined BB and rulefan singing their version of Tina Turner's "What's par got to do with it, got to do with it...."


----------



## Voyager EMH (Oct 20, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			More a case of it being 6 of one half dozen of the other. The bottom line is the same. CR-par might ostensibly seem needed to some, but that is more an illusion. The decision to skip it here is perfectly valid, in an attempt to simplify matters. Unfortunately the different implementation in itself, seems to have added more fog than it intended to clear, simply by being different.

*The score is not influenced by the perceived difficulty. The golfers score is determined by the number shots he hits - only.*

Click to expand...

Nail on the head here. I think this comment has been missed by many.

If stableford had never been invented, then I don't think there would be quite the clamour for CR-Par.

Your golf score is the total for the 18 holes played. Calculate the differential achieved and this will tell you what you played to.

After your game you can tell yourself, or others, your total score and/or your differential achieved.

This will help you to embrace the new system, be more comfortable with it and lessen the ingrained thinking that the last system engendered.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			Nail on the head here. I think this comment has been missed by many.

*If stableford had never been invented*, then I don't think there would be quite the clamour for CR-Par.

Your golf score is the total for the 18 holes played. Calculate the differential achieved and this will tell you what you played to.

After your game you can tell yourself, or others, your total score and/or your differential achieved.

This will help you to embrace the new system, be more comfortable with it and lessen the ingrained thinking that the last system engendered.
		
Click to expand...

Four things here:

1. Even without Stableford, players will often compare their scores to hole and course pars anyway. On a Par 70 course, a player will probably be pleased with a Nett 68, not so much with a Nett 75. The Nett 68, though, may not be as good as they think, if CR was 66. The Nett 75 may not be as bad as they think, if the CR was 75. CR-Par would make things more transparent
2. Stableford was invented
3. CR-Par is used everywhere else in the world. Have they got it wrong?
4. If CR-Par WAS used, this conversation would NOT be happening. Furthermore, I absolutely believe there would be nobody coming on here and moaning that CR-Par is used, and desperately trying to convince people that all they want to do is talk about their Score Differentials with other players. Are the US forums full of conversations of scratch golfers demanding to play off 0.0 at the easiest and hardest courses in the country? Or, do they understand that they may get more shots at absolutely harder courses, and less at easier ones? Roll that out for all golfers.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Four things here:

1. Even without Stableford, players will often compare their scores to hole and course pars anyway. On a Par 70 course, a player will probably be pleased with a Nett 68, not so much with a Nett 75. The Nett 68, though, may not be as good as they think, if CR was 66. The Nett 75 may not be as bad as they think, if the CR was 75. CR-Par would make things more transparent
2. Stableford was invented
3. CR-Par is used everywhere else in the world. *Have they got it wrong?*
4. If CR-Par WAS used, this conversation would NOT be happening. Furthermore, I absolutely believe there would be nobody coming on here and moaning that CR-Par is used, and desperately trying to convince people that all they want to do is talk about their Score Differentials with other players. Are the US forums full of conversations of scratch golfers demanding to play off 0.0 at the easiest and hardest courses in the country? Or, do they understand that they may get more shots at absolutely harder courses, and less at easier ones? Roll that out for all golfers.
		
Click to expand...

(Not that I agree with him - I don't - but) Dean Knuth would tell you they have.

Just a thought - given Course Ratings are measured and pars are arbitrarily assigned, why is no-one complaining that the pars are wrong?


----------



## rulefan (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Are the US forums full of conversations of scratch golfers demanding to play off 0.0 at the easiest and hardest courses in the country? Or, do they understand that they may get more shots at absolutely harder courses, and less at easier ones? Roll that out for all golfers.
		
Click to expand...

A player with an Index of 0.0 has a CH of (0 + (CR-par)). If CR = 69 and par = 72 what makes it easier? If CR = 69 and par = 67 what makes it harder?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			(Not that I agree with him - I don't - but) Dean Knuth would tell you they have.

Just a thought - given Course Ratings are measured and pars are arbitrarily assigned, why is no-one complaining that the pars are wrong?
		
Click to expand...

See, again, Course Pars are not arbitrary. They can sometimes be subjective, but they are not arbitrary.

As far as I am aware, arbitrary is defined as random or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. I've never played a 100 yard par 5, or a 600 yard par 3. Have you? Par is set by people using logic and reason. Hopefully people you'd generally have a bit of respect for, and know what they are doing.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			(Not that I agree with him - I don't - but) Dean Knuth would tell you they have.

Just a thought - given Course Ratings are measured and pars are arbitrarily assigned, why is no-one complaining that the pars are wrong?
		
Click to expand...

But they're not..not really.
There are guidelines for determining par, I forget what they are but you wouldn't see a 400 yard par 3 or a 300 yard par 5


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

rulefan said:



			A player with an Index of 0.0 has a CH of (0 + (CR-par)). If CR = 69 and par = 72 what makes it easier? If CR = 69 and par = 67 what makes it harder?
		
Click to expand...

I appreciate you have a severe blind spot in your thinking, but I'll try anyway.

If CR was 69, 3 lower than a Par of 72, the course plays easier than the Par suggests. Therefore, a player with an Index of 0.0 gets a course handicap of -3.0.

If Par was 67, and CR 69. the course plays 2 shots harder than Par. The 0.0 Indexer plays off 2.0

The Par 72 course might have a lot of short holes, several scoreable par 5's, and therefore the handicap is lower. The scratch golfer should be thinking it is a course they can shoot under par.

The Par 67 course may have no real scoring par 5 opportunities, long par 4's / long par 3's. Very tricky for the scratch golfer to shoot level par, as such their handicap is 2.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 20, 2022)

Imurg said:



			But they're not..not really.
There are guidelines for determining par, I forget what they are but you wouldn't see a 400 yard par 3 or a 300 yard par 5
		
Click to expand...

I remember being being told in the '70s that any hole up to 250 was a par 3, 251-470 a par 4 and above that a par 5. Don't quote me though


----------



## rulefan (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			See, again, Course Pars are not arbitrary. They can sometimes be subjective, but they are not arbitrary.

As far as I am aware, arbitrary is defined as random or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. I've never played a 100 yard par 5, or a 600 yard par 3. Have you? Par is set by people using logic and reason. Hopefully people you'd generally have a bit of respect for, and know what they are doing.
		
Click to expand...

The length allocation for par has varied around the world for years. In my time CONGU has changed the recommendation at least once. Do you know of any courses which have changed pars form CONGU to WHS values?
Some years ago a local club increased the par of a few (white) holes that were a couple of yards short of the new CONGU figures so that the course par was over 72. The idea was to attract more visitors (although they would use the yellows anyway). Was the course any more or less difficult?


----------



## IanM (Oct 20, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Was the course any more or less difficult?
		
Click to expand...

If playing *STABLEFORD* the "par" written on the card makes a significant difference to the number of points you get....   (if not the diff!)  But,  there you go, hope that is clear enough.  Don't tell me, the Rules Boffins don't accept Stableford as proper golf..   Of course, I am sorry.  I'll go and stand in the corner.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The length allocation for par has varied around the world for years. In my time CONGU has changed the recommendation at least one. Do you know of any courses which have changed pars form CONGU to WHS values?
Some years ago a local club increased the par of a few (white) holes that were a couple of yards short of the new CONGU figures so that the course par was over 72. The idea was to attract more visitors (although they would use the yellows anyway). Was the course any more or less difficult?
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure guidelines for Par have changed, as technology has allowed players to hit the ball further being one important thing to consider.

Look, time and time again, if you cannot see that a 250 yard hole would be considered DIFFICULT if it was a Par 3, but EASY if it was a Par 4, then there is no point in continuing the conversation. Should I just try and find new ways to say the same thing?

I also am fully aware that if a player plays a Par 72 course or a Par 69 course, there is zero indication of how difficult it is either. You seem fixated in focusing on JUST par to try and make your point. Whereas I am saying both CR AND Par need to be considered together. I have zero issues with CR, it is a crucial and essential part of the handicap system.

For me, all CR tells us is how many shots a scratch player should be expected to go round a course. It tells us absolutely nothing about difficulty. You could have a very high CR, but essentially be playing in a very long open course, with no trees, bunkers, penalty areas. Just a very very big open field. Easy golf, just a slog to get around. Or, you could be playing a much shorter course with lots of trees, penalty areas, heavy rough, etc and a lower CR.

But, please tell me. Are you saying if the CR on Course A is 72, and the CR of Course B is 71, is Course A harder?


----------



## wjemather (Oct 20, 2022)

Imurg said:



			But they're not..not really.
There are guidelines for determining par, I forget what they are but you wouldn't see a 400 yard par 3 or a 300 yard par 5
		
Click to expand...

Interestingly, there is at least one 400 yard par 3.

There is no way of knowing the par of a hole by yardage alone. Even with all information about the hole to hand it would still be impossible to be certain of the par.

The guidelines have ranges that significantly overlap. Assignment of par in these cases is almost always arbitrary, and very few courses do not have at least one such hole.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

IanM said:



			If playing *STABLEFORD* the "par" written on the card makes a significant difference to the number of points you get....   (if not the diff!)  But,  there you go, hope that is clear enough.  Don't tell me, the Rules Boffins don't accept Stableford as proper golf..   Of course, I am sorry.  I'll go and stand in the corner.
		
Click to expand...

They must do. After all, the handicap authorities even consider Texas Scramble as proper golf now


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Interestingly, there is at least one 400 yard par 3.

There is no way of knowing the par of a hole by yardage alone. Even with all information about the hole to hand it would still be impossible to be certain of the par.

The guidelines have ranges that significantly overlap. *Assignment of par in these cases is almost always arbitrary*, and very few courses do not have at least one such hole.
		
Click to expand...

There you go again, poor grasp of the word arbitrary, but I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point


----------



## Imurg (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Interestingly, there is at least one 400 yard par 3.

There is no way of knowing the par of a hole by yardage alone. Even with all information about the hole to hand it would still be impossible to be certain of the par.

The guidelines have ranges that significantly overlap. Assignment of par in these cases is almost always arbitrary, and very few courses do not have at least one such hole.
		
Click to expand...

And that's real golf is it..?
6 goes at it...19th hole....
It's as exhibition as LIV........


----------



## IanM (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			They must do. After all, the handicap authorities even consider Texas Scramble as proper golf now 

Click to expand...

That's nothing.  You're expected to put a card in from Tiger Woods Golf too


----------



## bobmac (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			There is no way of knowing the par of a hole by yardage alone. Even with all information about the hole to hand it would still be impossible to be certain of the par.
		
Click to expand...

Now you're just trolling.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			There you go again, poor grasp of the word arbitrary, but I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point
		
Click to expand...

Nope. Arbitrary is semantically correct.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 20, 2022)

bobmac said:



			Now you're just trolling.
		
Click to expand...

Ok, you don't believe me? Tell us the par of a level, wide-open, straight 485 yard hole with no obstacles and a large flat green.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			See, again, Course Pars are not arbitrary. They can sometimes be subjective, but they are not arbitrary.

As far as I am aware, arbitrary is defined as random or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. I've never played a 100 yard par 5, or a 600 yard par 3. Have you? Par is set by people using logic and reason. Hopefully people you'd generally have a bit of respect for, and know what they are doing.
		
Click to expand...

No, par is arbitrarily assigned, as they are derived from arbitrarily set distances for pars. And are a very coarse measure.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Nope. Arbitrary is semantically correct.
		
Click to expand...

Ok then. Maybe you are right. After all, the people at our course decided they randomly wanted 3 par 5's, 4 par 3's and the rest par 4's. They randomly drew these out of a hat, and assigned them to each hole in turn. It is so odd, because our longest par 5 is 300 yards and shortest 120 yards, whilst we have a 490 yard par 3.

Ohh, hang on, I might be mistaken. I think this was a dream I was having, must have been influenced by some odd comments I read somewhere about par simply being arbitrary 

As far as I am aware, the designers of the course / club committee must have used some logical thought process in determining the pars in each hole. 

Occasionally I hear the commentators on pro golf discussing a particular hole that has been changed to a par 4 for the professionals, even though it is a par 5 for the members. They often use words like "difficult" , "tricky" and "challenging" as to why there was a logic to this change. Of course, CR doesn't change, nor should it.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Ok, you don't believe me? Tell us the par of a level, wide-open, straight 485 yard hole with no obstacles and a large flat green.
		
Click to expand...

It could be a 4 or 5.
Your turn.
Tell us the par of a level, wide-open, straight 385 yard hole with no obstacles and a large flat green.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Ok, you don't believe me? Tell us the par of a level, wide-open, straight 485 yard hole with no obstacles and a large flat green.
		
Click to expand...

My Hand is up, can I answer Sir?

It could either be a Par 4 or a Par 5. 

If it is a Par 4, it'll probably be really tough. I might even be worried I could struggle to get my nett double bogey, let alone par.

If it is a Par 5, it'll probably be easy. I'd be disappointed if I don't get my nett double bogey

Either way, it'll have the same impact on CR, which it should.


----------



## bobmac (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Occasionally I hear the commentators on pro golf discussing a particular hole that has been changed to a par 4 for the professionals, even though it is a par 5 for the members. They often use words like "difficult" , "tricky" and "challenging" as to why there was a logic to this change. Of course, CR doesn't change, nor should it.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, whether it says par 4 or 5 for them means nothing


----------



## wjemather (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			See, again, Course Pars are not arbitrary. They can sometimes be subjective, but they are not arbitrary.

As far as I am aware, arbitrary is defined as random or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. I've never played a 100 yard par 5, or a 600 yard par 3. Have you? Par is set by people using logic and reason. Hopefully people you'd generally have a bit of respect for, and know what they are doing.
		
Click to expand...

I've played plenty of courses where pars have been set to up the overall par of the course so it isn't "too low". For example, one facility near Bristol has a couple of downhill par 5s that are well under 400 yards from the back tees!!


----------



## wjemather (Oct 20, 2022)

bobmac said:



*It could be a 4 or 5.*

Click to expand...




Swango1980 said:



			My Hand is up, can I answer Sir?

*It could either be a Par 4 or a Par 5.*

Click to expand...

Exactly; you cannot know from the information provided.


----------



## D-S (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			I've played plenty of courses where pars have been set to up the overall par of the course so it isn't "too low". For example, one facility near Bristol has a couple of downhill par 5s that are well under 400 yards from the back tees!!
		
Click to expand...

Out of interest, as a local, which course is this?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			I've played plenty of courses where pars have been set to up the overall par of the course so it isn't "too low". For example, one facility near Bristol has a couple of downhill par 5s that are well under 400 yards from the back tees!!
		
Click to expand...

There you go - there was a logic to it. Maybe you don't agree with the logic at these particular courses. Maybe many others would not either, feeling it makes the course too "easy". As such, players, if CR-Par was taken into account, would find their handicap relatively lower at this course than others (and compared to what happens in the UK now)


----------



## wjemather (Oct 20, 2022)

D-S said:



			Out of interest, as a local, which course is this?
		
Click to expand...

Woodlands.
I've just checked and it looks like new tees may have been put in to lengthen them a little, but they're still under 450 yards (and downhill) - and one is a questionably measured dogleg. There is also a 220-230 yard par 4, which is about 260 on the card because it's a dogleg (again, questionably measured).


----------



## wjemather (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			There you go - there was a logic to it. Maybe you don't agree with the logic at these particular courses. Maybe many others would not either, feeling it makes the course too "easy". As such, players, if CR-Par was taken into account, would find their handicap relatively lower at this course than others (and compared to what happens in the UK now)
		
Click to expand...

That's at a whim - it isn't logic.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Exactly; you cannot know from the information provided.
		
Click to expand...

Have I missed something here? I cannot seem to find the post were someone has claimed they KNOW the par of a hole based on yardage alone? I didn't even think anyone was having that debate?


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

wjemather said:



			That's at a whim - it isn't logic.
		
Click to expand...

Definition of whim: a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained

There was nothing to suggest the Par was set on a sudden desire? There was a thought process, which you indicated, the reason being they didn't want the par too low. So, it is not unexplained either. Sure, it may well be unusual, but not all unusual things are a whim. As I said, the desire to have a higher par essentially makes the course play easier, relative to par, than maybe some agree with (don't know, never been there)


----------



## D-S (Oct 20, 2022)

But if CR-par is included in the course handicap calculation and the par of the course is either artificially low or high then this will be immediately reflected in your course handicap. All I need to do as say a 5 handicapper, when CR-par is being used, is to check my Course Handicap and if it is 2 I now know what I need to shoot or if it is 9 equally I am aware straight away. No need to do any subsequent calculations or interpretations of my nett score or points total.

Surely as a region that is steeped in Stableford (see how posters on here almost always use points as a measure of their or others performance) CR-par is more suited to our golf culture than the US where Stableford is a rare beast. Why on earth we didn’t adopt it is beyond me and I still haven’t seen a strong rationale for this decision,.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 20, 2022)

D-S said:



			But if CR-par is included in the course handicap calculation and the par of the course is either artificially low or high then this will be immediately reflected in your course handicap. All I need to do as say a 5 handicapper, when CR-par is being used, is to check my Course Handicap and if it is 2 I now know what I need to shoot or if it is 9 equally I am aware straight away. No need to do any subsequent calculations or interpretations of my nett score or points total.

*Surely as a region that is steeped in Stableford* (see how posters on here almost always use points as a measure of their or others performance) CR-par is more suited to our golf culture than the US where Stableford is a rare beast. Why on earth we didn’t adopt it is beyond me and I still haven’t seen a strong rationale for this decision,.
		
Click to expand...

I presume you mean CONGU region? You'd have to exclude Scotland, Stableford is far rarer here, my second course has no stabelefords at all between April-Sept for eg.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 20, 2022)

Par is a very coarse meadure of old, of what a bogey golfer would expect to score. But its limitations were obvious. It is based on length, and doesnt reflect course difficulty.
SSS was an improvement on that.

CR is similar to SSS in its goal, debatably more systematic in its methodology, precision to the decimal place, and enhanced when combined with slope.

Par is redundant it the now superior iteration of CR. It is unnecessary for the determination of handicaps, their allocation in competition, or scores. Apart from the particularity of stableford which uses it on a hole by hole basis, but not overall.
So par is not needed for the calculation of handicaps. Adding it, and subtracting it again is a needless step.
Congu was correct to omit it. 

Their mistake was not to convince the rest of the world of that merit in the jump to whs.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Par is a very coarse meadure of old, of what a bogey golfer would expect to score. But its limitations were obvious. It is based on length, and doesnt reflect course difficulty.
SSS was an improvement on that.

CR is similar to SSS in its goal, debatably more systematic in its methodology, precision to the decimal place, and enhanced when combined with slope.

Par is redundant it the now superior iteration of CR. It is unnecessary for the determination of handicaps, their allocation in competition, or scores. Apart from the particularity of stableford which uses it on a hole by hole basis, but not overall.
So par is not needed for the calculation of handicaps. Adding it, and subtracting it again is a needless step.
Congu was correct to omit it.

Their mistake was not to convince the rest of the world of that merit in the jump to whs.
		
Click to expand...

Your still confusing the argument (and Par is not the score a bogey golfer is expected to score?)

Nobody has any argument with Course Rating. It is essential. But, CR does not tell you anything about the difficulty of the course. If anything, it is based much more on length than Par is, given that out of all the factors that determine CR, length has about 85% of the influence.


----------



## D-S (Oct 20, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Par is a very coarse meadure of old, of what a bogey golfer would expect to score. But its limitations were obvious. It is based on length, and doesnt reflect course difficulty.
SSS was an improvement on that.

CR is similar to SSS in its goal, debatably more systematic in its methodology, precision to the decimal place, and enhanced when combined with slope.

Par is redundant it the now superior iteration of CR. It is unnecessary for the determination of handicaps, their allocation in competition, or scores. Apart from the particularity of stableford which uses it on a hole by hole basis, but not overall.
So par is not needed for the calculation of handicaps. Adding it, and subtracting it again is a needless step.
Congu was correct to omit it.

Their mistake was not to convince the rest of the world of that merit in the jump to whs.
		
Click to expand...

Like it or not though it is how the majority of golfers measure their performance and is therefore current and important - combining this with the new improved SSS that is CR is sensible. Trying to deny this is forcing a culture change that just isn’t going to happen. The day I read the majority of posts assessing performance as a number versus CR I will agree with you, but that will be a long time coming.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

D-S said:



			Like it or not though it is how the majority of golfers measure their performance and is therefore current and important - combining this with the new improved SSS that is CR is sensible. Trying to deny this is forcing a culture change that just isn’t going to happen. The day I read the majority of posts assessing performance as a number versus CR I will agree with you, but that will be a long time coming.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.

How often do we look at the results sheets at our club, and say "Player x did really well, winning with 42 points / nett 65?" How many posts in this thread have refereed to ridiculous scores of 50 odd points (when complaining about high handicappers for example)?

I've absolutely never heard anyone say "Player x did really well in the comp, won with a Score Differential of -5.2 under their Index". Perhaps if Par is now redundant, we should ask the ISVs to report Score Differentials relative to Index in Comps, not Points?

We also here some players talk about very high Stableford Scores, and saying it is not right. One of the handicap gurus then have to step in and say the Points is not necessarily important, what is the CR relative to Par. This goes on for a while, and if it turns out CR is several shots lower than Par, then it needs to be explained 39/40 points is considered playing to handicap, and so maybe the score is not impressive as it looks. CR-Par would solve that issue.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 20, 2022)

IanM said:



			ah, excuse me having the temerity to reply based on the words in the posting, rather than what you thought you meant

Click to expand...

It was in the context of the discussion which I assume you were following.




			Is this why none of the people with “Rules“ in their screen name EVER show up at meets?

Click to expand...

Which 'meets' are these?


----------



## IanM (Oct 20, 2022)

rulefan said:



			It was in the context of the discussion which I assume you were following.


Which 'meets' are these?
		
Click to expand...


_1) Apologies again for replying to a direct quote, I'll phone for for context next time!  Just to check you haven't moved on and you can tell me which words to ignore. 
2) You are kidding????   _


----------



## rulefan (Oct 20, 2022)

IanM said:



_1) Apologies again for replying to a direct quote, I'll phone for for context next time!  Just to check you haven't moved on and you can tell me which words to ignore. 
2) You are kidding????  _

Click to expand...

1) Accepted 
2) No


----------



## Alan Clifford (Oct 20, 2022)

I essentially ignore the course handicap when playing casual games.  I just know what I have to score for my handicap to stay the same and to get a reduction.

So, if I play the front 9 tomorrow, course handicap plus par is 12 + 35 = 47.  I need 48 to stay the same and 47 for a cut.  The cut may only be minute in decimal points.
If I play 18, course handicap plus par is 24 + 69 = 93.  I need 92 for both same and cut.  They'll be the same because of changing 1 point decimals to integers.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Oct 20, 2022)

And so it continues...

The debate on,

Par of a hole.
Par of the course.
Course rating.
Difficult/easy hole or course.

with debate clouded by old system thinking.

New system,

Par of hole less important 
Par of course less important
Course rating more important
All courses same difficulty/easiness by way of Course and Slope ratings.

I have over 50 years of previous systems colouring my thinking. But after two years of the new system I have managed to change my thinking.

I have wavered over CR-Par. I was in agreement with those that wanted it here at some points over the last 2 years, but I kept an open mind and I no longer see it as necessary.


----------



## Alan Clifford (Oct 20, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			And so it continues...

I have wavered over CR-Par. I was in agreement with those that wanted it here at some points over the last 2 years, but I kept an open mind and I no longer see it as necessary.
		
Click to expand...

Par is not removed from the course handicap.   Except it is!   For 9 hole rounds.  The inconsistency is so illogical.


----------



## yandabrown (Oct 20, 2022)

Alan Clifford said:



			Par is not removed from the course handicap.   Except it is!   For 9 hole rounds.  The inconsistency is so illogical.
		
Click to expand...

Or even for 18 holes if you go round a 9 hole course twice!


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			And so it continues...

The debate on,

Par of a hole.
Par of the course.
Course rating.
Difficult/easy hole or course.

with debate clouded by old system thinking.

New system,

Par of hole less important
Par of course less important
Course rating more important
All courses same difficulty/easiness by way of Course and Slope ratings.

I have over 50 years of previous systems colouring my thinking. But after two years of the new system I have managed to change my thinking.

I have wavered over CR-Par. I was in agreement with those that wanted it here at some points over the last 2 years, but I kept an open mind and I no longer see it as necessary.
		
Click to expand...

For clarity. I too am very aware of how the new system works, and when viewing my scores on MyEG will always look at the Score Differentials, and compare them to what they may be replacing, etc. 

So, I've zero issues with CR or Score Differentials. However, I am still personally massively in favour of including CR-Par within the course handicap calculation. It doesn't stop anyone evaluating their Score Differentials if that it what floats their boat. But, it still allows all golfers to make reasonable judgments as to how they have scored, or others, relative to their handicap, simply by looking at the scores. It just makes things much simpler for everyone as far as I can see.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 20, 2022)

yandabrown said:



			Or even for 18 holes if you go round a 9 hole course twice!
		
Click to expand...

No, not correct


----------



## yandabrown (Oct 20, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			No, not correct
		
Click to expand...

True, CONGU ignore that rule and use CR's for the full 18, I was looking at the note in 6.1a in WHS Rules of Handicapping.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			For clarity. I too am very aware of how the new system works, and when viewing my scores on MyEG will always look at the Score Differentials, and compare them to what they may be replacing, etc.

So, I've zero issues with CR or Score Differentials. However, I am still personally massively in favour of* including CR-Par within the course handicap calculation.* It doesn't stop anyone evaluating their Score Differentials if that it what floats their boat. But, *it still allows all golfers to make reasonable judgments as to how they have scored, or others, relative to their handicap*, simply by looking at the scores. *It just makes things much simpler for everyone* as far as I can see.
		
Click to expand...

Including CR-Par in the CH calculation makes that calculation more complicated, not simpler.
You can compare your scores to others by looking at gross scores and/or nett scores.
For your score relative to handicap, you can look at your differential.

Before I start my round, I can read my CH from a board, I can see how CR differs from par and the SR.
That's all I need to know to give me an idea what I need my golf score to be to play to my handicap.

But if I were a stableford thinker, like the vast majority of golfers, due to the last system engendering such, then CR-Par would allow me to continue to be a stableford thinker and that would be simpler for my brain.
At the moment CR-Par would make sense to the majority, but for those of us who are not stableford thinkers, it is not required.
I said, nearly two years ago, that it might take 4 to 6 years for the new system to change the way people think. We are not even halfway there yet.


----------



## D-S (Oct 20, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



*Including CR-Par in the CH calculation makes that calculation more complicated, not simpler.*
You can compare your scores to others by looking at gross scores and/or nett scores.
For your score relative to handicap, you can look at your differential.

*Before I start my round, I can read my CH from a board, I can see how CR differs from par and the SR.
That's all I need to know to give me an idea what I need my golf score to be to play to my handicap.*

But if I were a stableford thinker, like the vast majority of golfers, due to the last system engendering such, then CR-Par would allow me to continue to be a stableford thinker and that would be simpler for my brain.
At the moment CR-Par would make sense to the majority, but for those of us who are not stableford thinkers, it is not required.
I said, nearly two years ago, that it might take 4 to 6 years for the new system to change the way people think. We are not even halfway there yet.
		
Click to expand...

It might make the maths more complicated but no one ever does the maths, they either look at the board or get it from the app, just as they do today 

If CR-par is included in your CH you don’t need to do this step at all, it is baked in.


----------



## Alan Clifford (Oct 20, 2022)

If you play with your wife, husband or similar, you have to do a course rating, arithmetic dance anyway.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

Alan Clifford said:



			If you play with your wife, husband or similar, you have to do a course rating, arithmetic dance anyway.
		
Click to expand...

Why?


----------



## Alan Clifford (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Why?
		
Click to expand...

Different course ratings from different tees and for genders.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Oct 20, 2022)

Alan Clifford said:



			Different course ratings from different tees and for genders.
		
Click to expand...

And different par on the same hole sometimes.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 20, 2022)

Alan Clifford said:



			Different course ratings from different tees and for genders.
		
Click to expand...

I assume you don't have to divide by 113 in your head, rather you check your course handicap from the board at club, or on your phone app?


----------



## Voyager EMH (Oct 20, 2022)

I have not yet used a phone to play golf.
The day I am compelled to use one will be a very strange day.

I am not uncomfortable with being in a minority.
Minority views are not necessarily invalid ones.
But I do not demand or require everyone to think the way I do.
I enjoy reading other people's points of view.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 20, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Yes this means nothing at all 





Click to expand...

  Yup I agree. Par in a pro golf tournament means nothing.

The player who goes round in the least number of shots for the specified number of holes is the winner. This board does nothing more than the show positions of each player relative to another player.


----------



## Alan Clifford (Oct 20, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I assume you don't have to divide by 113 in your head, rather you check your course handicap from the board at club, or on your phone app?
		
Click to expand...

And then adjust by the difference course ratings.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 21, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			I am a member of two clubs, play midweek comps at both (called scroungers) Wednesday and Thursday, then Saturday comp at one of them, plus I play in our veterans for the South West of OZ, (largest in OZ) they playing 26-30 times a year mostly Monday or Tuesday.

I also play in Opens which are Sat/Sun, so quite easily well over 120.

Plus our weather makes it possible, as play all year, most of our Majors (club champs) are held in our winter months.
		
Click to expand...

Just checked my Handicap register, last round was yesterday 20/10 and the 20th card was 14/9 played over 8 different courses, cost of golf here is very cheap compared to England.


----------



## JamesR (Oct 21, 2022)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583480834853462016


----------



## Captain_Black. (Oct 21, 2022)

JamesR said:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583480834853462016

Click to expand...

No!!!
You don't say!!!


----------



## JamesR (Oct 21, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			No!!!
You don't say!!!
		
Click to expand...

No I don’t…Carly says


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 21, 2022)

JamesR said:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583480834853462016

Click to expand...

She should post her thoughts on here so the usual suspects can tell her shes wrong it's better now and she had it good and had the advantage too long🤣🤣


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 21, 2022)

We do seem, in this part of the world, both the most competition based golfers, and, the most mistrustful of our fellow golfers golfers.

If casual rounds are the norm for submitting cards, and formal competitions a rarity or not at all, then there is no problem. A golfer is not going to lose to his mates 5 times in a few weeks so that he can then beat them once. It makes no sense. So people raise no questions about morality or handicap building. WHS works in this scenario.

Where competitive rounds, as we in Congu-land effectively regarded them, as the only relevant rounds for handicapping, in the UHS days, people used to question handicap building to some extent. But we understood that if it were happening, it required a bigger investment. It meant entering competitions, and posting bad scores, as an 'investment' for one day payoff. It wasnt a great prospect, and so probably rarer, and more anectodal. So UHS worked.

But we seem to have carried this mentality over to the WHS era. Causal rounds for handicap adjustments seems too easy. For the mistrusting among us, it is a worst nightmare, and cheats charter. You dont even have to pay and entry fee, build a handicap over weeks or months, for that one day payoff and a possible win as you let the handbrake off and score with the turbo of your hard gained extra shots. Now you just submit rounds, at no entry fee cost, no limit to the number of rounds, and without the cap of 1 shot rise.

Our hybrid, still competition dominated golf as serious or 'real' golf, yet encouraged to submit scores as often as possible when just play friendly rounds, is just too much of a cognitive dissonance for our golfing culture ?

Ahhhhh!!!
Everybody is shooting 50 points now !
There a cheats everywhere !
I am the only honest golfer left, not gaming the system, but only posting 39 points, on a good day, with the wind behind me on both nines !

Or am I just too Congu UHS institutionalised to join the modern world ?


----------



## JonnyGutteridge (Oct 21, 2022)

The part of WHS that doesn't work is General Play cards. Get them in the bin, scrap them, I never want to see a general play card entered ever again.

To be honest, though, I am not seeing the banditry and abuse for increases - only really for vanity handicaps, or in order to qualify for Opens with a handicap ballot.

Everyone I know who puts in general play cards is abusing the system. I have never put in a GP card, and I never will.
- People saying they'll put a card in, having a nightmare start, never submitting the score.
- People finishing a round, realising it was good, and then putting the score in afterwards having not declared it prior to playing.

The above 2 things are happening on a daily occurrence at every golf club in the country. It completely undermines the handicap system. 
There's many people whereby their ALL their general play cards result in a cut. No sign of any bad scores at all. I would love to see the data, I imagine it is overwhelming obvious that General Play scoring is significantly better than competition scoring, and that is due to the 2 reasons above.

Additionally, PCC and the fact that it is not produced as a decimal place value (1dp) is annoying to me giving the ineffectiveness of PCC to actually do what it is designed to do. I would love to see adjustments of -0.1, +0.3 etc on a weekly basis.


----------



## woofers (Oct 21, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			The part of WHS that doesn't work is General Play cards.
I would love to see the data, I imagine it is overwhelming obvious that General Play scoring is significantly better than competition scoring,…
		
Click to expand...

There is a report available on the England Golf WHS platform, “Competition vs General Play scores“ which shows for each player the number of Competition and General Play scores together with the average stroke differential for both categories. Makes interesting reading in some cases.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 21, 2022)

woofers said:



			There is a report available on the England Golf WHS platform, *“Competition vs General Play scores“* which shows for each player the number of Competition and General Play scores together with the average stroke differential for both categories. Makes interesting reading in some cases.
		
Click to expand...

Have you got a link. I can't find it on
https://members.whsplatform.englandgolf.org/ 
or 
https://www.englandgolf.org/news/


----------



## rosecott (Oct 21, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Have you got a link. I can't find it on
https://members.whsplatform.englandgolf.org/
or
https://www.englandgolf.org/news/

Click to expand...

Will only be available to those with administrative rights on the WHS dashboard.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

woofers said:



			Unsure about posting a link but does this screenshot help?
		
Click to expand...




rosecott said:



			Will only be available to those with administrative rights on the WHS dashboard.
		
Click to expand...

Got it, thanks.


----------



## Junior (Oct 22, 2022)

JamesR said:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583480834853462016

Click to expand...

I was going to post this.  An excellent piece on the subject and sums up all these pages well.  

1. The system came in and some handicaps jumped up significantly. 
2. The system is good and works if everyone submits cards on a regular basis.  
3. However, as many don't,  there will always be flaws.
4. Handicaps reflect form and not ability and this is contentious.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 22, 2022)

Junior said:



			I was going to post this.  An excellent piece on the subject and sums up all these pages well. 

1. The system came in and some handicaps jumped up significantly.
*2. The system is good and works if everyone submits cards on a regular basis. *
3. However, as many don't,  there will always be flaws.
4. Handicaps reflect form and not ability and this is contentious.
		
Click to expand...

This is never going to happen, it would need a complete change of mindset from how golf has been played in these countries since forever.


----------



## Junior (Oct 22, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			This is never going to happen, it would need a complete change of mindset from how golf has been played in these countries since forever.
		
Click to expand...

I agree.  

I'm a golf badger.  Mildly obsessed with the game.  It occupies my mind on various levels most days.  

That said, I've only  played 27 qualifying rounds this Summer (most Saturdays and the odd open).   My qualifying rounds have all been competitions. I just haven't got in the mindset of submitting a card each time I play.  I dont think i will ever embrace this change.  I love evening bounce games over 12 holes (various formats depending on number of players) and can't see me registering these scores for handicap.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

JamesR said:



			No I don’t…Carly says
		
Click to expand...

I think Carly has it just about right.
The fact there’s 33 pages on the subject shows something is wrong imo.
The only thing I disagree with is a card every time you play.
Sometimes I just want to experiment with shots on the course ,can’t do that if putting a card in.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 22, 2022)

I suspect the mind change will generally happen with new golfers coming through the system, who are not wedded to the "old way".

Plenty of long time golfers at my place submit all their social scores, but of course there will also be many who can't be bothered, or feel it is too much effort.

For me, using MyEG, it makes social golf much more worthwhile and interesting. I can also enter all scores on App as I go, which is actually so much easier than writing everything out on a card


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 22, 2022)

woofers said:



			There is a report available on the England Golf WHS platform, “Competition vs General Play scores“ which shows for each player the number of Competition and General Play scores together with the average stroke differential for both categories. Makes interesting reading in some cases.
		
Click to expand...




JonnyGutteridge said:



			There's many people whereby their ALL their general play cards result in a cut. No sign of any bad scores at all. I would love to see the data, I imagine it is overwhelming obvious that General Play scoring is significantly better than competition scoring, and that is due to the 2 reasons above.
		
Click to expand...

When I looked at the report the differentials of General Play rounds compared to Competition rounds, GP rounds are on average, 1.5 strokes better (this is for golfers who have played at least 9 competition rounds and over 20 GP rounds so far this year). 1.5 strokes is hardly an indication of managing vanity handicaps or supportive of any claim that GP scoring is significantly better than comp scoring...mind you we dont have a load of low handicappers who are trying to get in to ballotted opens so perhaps that motivation isnt there. 

However, there is no data whatsoever that supports any claim that players are only putting in their good scores from General Play rounds on a wholesale basis. I picked eight players at random from mid single digit players to mid 20 handicappers and 7 of them displayed General Play scoring patterns that showed their GP scores were biased so that 54% of their scores were worse than their mean score (the exception was a high handicapper who's pattern was the opposite)

So... overwhelmingly obvious that GP scores are significantly better than comp scoring?.....no, I think not.


----------



## woofers (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			I think Carly has it just about right.
The fact there’s 33 pages on the subject shows something is wrong imo.
The only thing I disagree with is a card every time you play.
Sometimes I just want to experiment with shots on the course ,can’t do that if putting a card in.
		
Click to expand...

Same here.
I have over 50 qualifying scores in the last 12 months, mainly from club competitions & Opens and the others classified as General Play from society and tours where we play competitive golf.
I don’t put in cards when I’m playing socially as we either make up a 4BBB or I want to experiment with different shots, clubs etc.
I think a major fault with WHS is not having to submit a certain number of scores each year / rolling 12 months in order to keep an “active” or “competition“ handicap as in the UHS.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 22, 2022)

I've not put in any GP scores yet, but I would be in favour of a min number of cards per year, no idea how many that would be though.  We have a couple of example of guys putting no scores in since WHS and have significantly improved,  romped a couple of the knock outs as they appear to be able to play well under their current handicap, but also have another few who put in dozens of cards and are much much lower than they ever were under the old system, one is at least 5 shots. Had a conversation with one of the selectors of one of the teams and he said he's hard not to pick as he's prob the lowest in that category, but in comps hasn't broken 80 gross in any comp.

Obviously this was also a problem under the old system as well. Wish there was some sort of answer


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

woofers said:



			Same here.
I have over 50 qualifying scores in the last 12 months, mainly from club competitions & Opens and the others classified as General Play from society and tours where we play competitive golf.
I don’t put in cards when I’m playing socially as we either make up a 4BBB or I want to experiment with different shots, clubs etc.
I think a major fault with WHS is not having to submit a certain number of scores each year / rolling 12 months in order to keep an “active” or “competition“ handicap as in the UHS.
		
Click to expand...

Yes we play a regular fourball midweek.
One lad is left handed so on our short par three we play left handed with his club.
He plays right handed with our clubs.
It’s just for fun, but if you have a bit of a lead it can disappear on this hole.
Social golf is the bedrock of golf imo.
If I had to put a card in every time I play I just would not enjoy it as much.

On your last statement I think if you can’t put 20 cards a year in your wasting your time being a member of a club.
A minimum of three is just a joke imo.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			I've not put in any GP scores yet, but I would be in favour of a min number of cards per year, no idea how many that would be though.  We have a couple of example of guys putting no scores in since WHS and have significantly improved,  romped a couple of the knock outs as they appear to be able to play well under their current handicap, but also have another few who put in dozens of cards and are much much lower than they ever were under the old system, one is at least 5 shots. Had a conversation with one of the selectors of one of the teams and he said he's hard not to pick as he's prob the lowest in that category, but in comps hasn't broken 80 gross in any comp.

Obviously this was also a problem under the old system as well. Wish there was some sort of answer
		
Click to expand...

Golf is supposedly played by honest ,rule abiding gentlemen and ladies.
I think WHS is showing us how many players don’t subscribe to that .
We are fast losing our image as self regulating players imo.
The system is easy to abuse without actually breaking any rules.


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 22, 2022)

JamesR said:




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583480834853462016

Click to expand...

There is some right nonsense in there. A lot of anecdotal or isolated incidents that are presented as sweeping generalisations that hold true for the entire WHS.

"Players with handicaps of 10 shots or more"....yes there may be some around but that is not to say that the WHS itself is solely responsible for that or that the vast majority of players have inflated handicaps.

"Players who played off a handicap of 20 or below but are now have handicaps as high as 30 and cant get themselves down".....maybe their old handicaps were wrong....maybe they cant get themselves down because they are not good enough.

"Clubs start with a scratch team and then lose players as their handicap rises" - maybe the players should practise more to get their handicaps back down....again that is not caused by the WHS....the same issue would have occurred under the UHS

"A lot of confusion over what scores should be submitted" - no there isn't, it is quite clear and is simply the responsibility of handicap committees to make clear to their members - again not a fault of the WHS

"...playing away in Scotland and card not submitted" - the club was wrong to say it would be submitted as there was no link between the Scottish and English systems to allow this to happen - but that's not a fault of the WHS itself, just the lack of integration between different systems

"We've all witnesses "that" golfer who four putts the last green to prevent their score from being too low..." ....er....actually no...I've never witnessed anything of the kind

"The WHS is clearly open to interpretation" - er...no it isnt. "Abuse?" - yes...but so was the old UHS.

"the new WHS seems to have shaken up the handicap system so that it is no longer equal or fair" -  I'd say that it has balanced things out a bit and possibly evened out a prior bias towards low handicappers...maybe it has swung just slightly too much in the higher handicappers favour...but not awfully.

"we now have a maximum allowable handicap of 54" - hello....we had 54 handicaps before WHS

"Lets bring back 28 and 36 handicap limits....if you cant break 100 why should you be allowed to compete and win" - Basically....low handicapper elitist nonsense.

I don't mind people knocking any system, be it the WHS, the method of electing governments, how the pop charts are compiled etc.....but what I do object to are generalisations and anecdotes being used to criticise, which are not backed up by a shred of mathematical evidence....and golf is a numbers game, so the data is there to prove/disprove pretty much any claim about handicaps, scoring patterns etc.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

woofers said:



			Same here.
I think a major fault with WHS is not having to submit a certain number of scores each year / rolling 12 months in order to keep an “active” or “competition“ handicap as in the UHS.
		
Click to expand...

Wasn't that abandoned before WHS? But the committee can specify such conditions as a requirement for entry into competitions and/or to win prizes.


----------



## woofers (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			On your last statement I think if you can’t put 20 cards a year in your wasting your time being a member of a club.
A minimum of three is just a joke imo.
		
Click to expand...

There needs to be a minimum, currently you potentially have players with handicaps awarded from UHS conversion able to enter competitions and win prizes. Obviously if it’s an individual competition then it will be a qualifying score, but if it’s matchplay then there is no direct impact on their handicap record. It just makes more work for handicap secretaries or committees.
The answer is to have a minimum number of qualifiers in order to win (or enter?) competition, (you could enter but not win individual comps, but not enter matchplay knockouts?)
Question is how many would be the minimum, I agree that 3 is a joke, I believe I have seen that SILH at Farnham has quoted 6 for their comps. There are factors such as course playability year round, somewhere free draining could ask for more than those prone to winter closures due to wet condition.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			"Lets bring back 28 and 36 handicap limits....if you cant break 100 why should you be allowed to compete and win" - Basically....low handicapper elitist nonsense.
		
Click to expand...

And of course it defeats the whole purpose of handicaps. 

If a 40 capper has no chance of winning, why enter. If he doesn't enter comps why bother joining a club? How does the club make up the lost subs?


----------



## woofers (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The committee can specify such conditions as a requirement for entry into competitions.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, on that there is always a discussion regarding “how many” is the right number, but also “can they enter and play, but not win” if they don’t meet the requirement? Down to individual clubs to decide I guess, but it would be interesting to get views or actual experiences of this.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

woofers said:



			Yes, on that there is always a discussion regarding “how many” is the right number, but also *“can they enter and play, but not win”* if they don’t meet the requirement? Down to individual clubs to decide I guess, but it would be interesting to get views or actual experiences of this.
		
Click to expand...

See my edit

Our conditions from 2023 will be:
Requiring 12 qualifying cards (9 or 18) on their record to be able to win a major/board competition, including 6 in the previous calendar year inclusive of general play rounds. Members without this can still play on the competition day to win divisional sweep monies and get qualifying cards onto their record.
But will be reconsidered at end of this year. Proportion of and actual GP vs Comp scores will be a key study.


----------



## JamesR (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes we play a regular fourball midweek.
One lad is left handed so on our short par three we play left handed with his club.
He plays right handed with our clubs.
It’s just for fun, but if you have a bit of a lead it can disappear on this hole.
Social golf is the bedrock of golf imo.
If I had to put a card in every time I play I just would not enjoy it as much.

On your last statement I think if you can’t put 20 cards a year in your wasting your time being a member of a club.
A minimum of three is just a joke imo.
		
Click to expand...

I only managed about a dozen cards this year.
Mainly as I was injured/had been operated on in march, so couldn’t play until June.
I then played all the club matches I could upon my return to play. Which are mainly on Saturday. Which are match play better ball.
I also mostly play match play with my mates.
So I got a huge amount of value out of my club membership. Just that I didn’t put many cards in.


----------



## Junior (Oct 22, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			There is some right nonsense in there. A lot of anecdotal or isolated incidents that are presented as sweeping generalisations that hold true for the entire WHS.
		
Click to expand...

It's not anecdotal if that's the writers experience, also, reading through this thread it appears the incidents are not isolated.  Many (including me)  saw the same at their club as what the writer describes. 

Ive come to my own conclusion that WHS is a good system.   It isn't perfect, neither was the last.  It works if people submit cards for handicap on a frequent basis.   Some people will, some people won't so there will always be conflicts.  

As ive said earlier in the thread , i think PCC still needs looking at, and, i think something should be done about cat 1 golfers.  Handicap secretary's also need to keep an eye on the winners of knockouts and adjust accordingly to avoid what @patricks148 describes above.


----------



## Steve Wilkes (Oct 22, 2022)

Junior said:



			It's not anecdotal if that's the writers experience, also, reading through this thread it appears the incidents are not isolated.  Many (including me)  saw the same at their club as what the writer describes.

Ive come to my own conclusion that WHS is a good system.   It isn't perfect, neither was the last. * It works if people submit cards for handicap on a frequent basis.*   Some people will, some people won't so there will always be conflicts.

As ive said earlier in the thread , i think PCC still needs looking at, and, i think something should be done about cat 1 golfers.  Handicap secretary's also need to keep an eye on the winners of knockouts and adjust accordingly to avoid what @patricks148 describes above.
		
Click to expand...

It only works if people submit cards with integrity, If people are using the system to "Cheat" their handicap then no system will work


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 22, 2022)

Junior said:



			I was going to post this.  An excellent piece on the subject and sums up all these pages well. 


4. Handicaps reflect form and not ability and this is contentious.
		
Click to expand...

Which was always what even UHS was intended to be. But its failure, and thus indicating ability rather than form, has conditioned the thinking of UHS veterans that this failure was in how it should be.
We now have a system that works - and indicates form much better - but they are struggling to realise than and change their mindset.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 22, 2022)

Junior said:



			I agree. 

I'm a golf badger.  Mildly obsessed with the game.  It occupies my mind on various levels most days. 

That said, I've only  played 27 qualifying rounds this Summer (most Saturdays and the odd open).   My qualifying rounds have all been competitions. I just haven't got in the mindset of submitting a card each time I play.  I dont think i will ever embrace this change.  I love evening bounce games over 12 holes (various formats depending on number of players) and can't see me registering these scores for handicap.
		
Click to expand...

27 cards a year is more than ample. 15 or so would be a good target for most I think, whether competition ones, or casual ones.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 22, 2022)

Steve Wilkes said:



			It only works if people submit cards with integrity, If people are using the system to "Cheat" their handicap then no system will work
		
Click to expand...

The same as before, but there was, I guess, a higher barrier to entry to cheating. You had to pay into a competition, and sacrifice the competition. That tempered things for a great majority of the minority prone to handicap management.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			And of course it defeats the whole purpose of handicaps.

If a 40 capper has no chance of winning, why enter. If he doesn't enter comps why bother joining a club? How does the club make up the lost subs?
		
Click to expand...

But it's OK for a low handicap to have no chance of winning?


----------



## Alan Clifford (Oct 22, 2022)

If you had 40 players of my standard in a competition, one of us is going to have a magnificent round.  A low handicapper doesn't stand a chance.  So you need divisions in competitions.

I also think it would be a good idea to have two handicaps and you play competitions off your lowest.  One would be an everything handicap and the other would be a competition handicap (although the definition of a "competition" might be a bit tricky).


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			But it's OK for a low handicap to have no chance of winning?
		
Click to expand...

If the committee is doing its job all handicappers should have an equal chance of winning.


----------



## IanM (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			If the committee is doing its job all handicappers should have an equal chance of winning.
		
Click to expand...

No chance.  The Committee can't make every player in the club behave in exactly the same way.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			If the committee is doing its job all handicappers should have an equal chance of winning.
		
Click to expand...

Should have ! But that’s not the reality of what’s happening.
I can’t shoot 46 + points that’s what is winning at mine.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Should have ! But that’s not the reality of what’s happening.
I can’t shoot 46 + points that’s what is winning at mine.
		
Click to expand...

Have you or anyone else looked at the winner's playing record?

We have a strong and active handicaps & comps committee. We have not had any outlandish scores. Coincidence?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Have you or anyone else looked at the winner's playing record?
		
Click to expand...

No I havnt.
It’s not the same person all the time.

It’s getting that the members are saying “ I need to go up a few shots to have a chance”


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			No I havnt.
It’s not the same person all the time.
		
Click to expand...

Does you committee at least do an annual review?
Are they players who have just got handicaps?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Does you committee at least do an annual review?
Are they players who have just got handicaps?
		
Click to expand...

No they are not they are a mixture of middle and high.
But no single figure player has scored anywhere near that.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Have you or anyone else looked at the winner's playing record?

We have a strong and active handicaps & comps committee. We have not had any outlandish scores. Coincidence?
		
Click to expand...

Imo this was always going to be a problem for hcap comittiee volunteers doubling or trebling their workload.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Imo this was always going to be a problem for hcap comittiee volunteers doubling or trebling their workload.
		
Click to expand...

We aren't doing any more or less than we have for the last umpteen years


clubchamp98 said:



			No they are not they are a mixture of middle and high.
But no single figure player has scored anywhere near that.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect that score of a low capper. But I am very doubtful about the diligence of your hcap committee. Have you queried any of these scores with the c'ee? If not, why not?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			We aren't doing any more or less than we have for the last umpteen years
I wouldn't expect that score of a low capper. But I am very doubtful about the diligence of your hcap committee. Have you queried any of these scores with the c'ee? If not, why not?
		
Click to expand...

Yes there’s been a lot of complaints 
Simple answer is they are not breaking any rules.
It’s wide open to abuse ,and some are taking advantage.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes there’s been a lot of complaints
Simple answer is they are not breaking any rules.
It’s wide open to abuse ,and some are taking advantage.
		
Click to expand...

If the player is not following 1.3(i) clauses 1, 2 or 4 the committee can and should  take disciplinary action.


----------



## IanM (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			If the player is not following 1.3(i) clauses 1, 2 or 4 the committee can and should  take disciplinary action.
		
Click to expand...

I see a problem with this response 🤔


----------



## wjemather (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes there’s been a lot of complaints
Simple answer is *they are not breaking any rules*.
It’s wide open to abuse ,and *some are taking advantage*.
		
Click to expand...

These statements are somewhat contradictory.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 22, 2022)

IanM said:



			I see a problem with this response 🤔
		
Click to expand...

Who will have the problem, the committee or the player?


----------



## IanM (Oct 22, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Who will have the problem, the committee or the player?
		
Click to expand...

97% of the readers of this forum!😁

They won't know what clause thingermebob is


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 22, 2022)

wjemather said:



			These statements are somewhat contradictory.
		
Click to expand...

Are they ?
Player A can shoot 50 pts ,
Then over three weeks put 20 GP cards in and he’s back where he started, that score is gone from his record.
So he shoots 50 pts again what rules has he broken ?


We are going around in circles.
A lot of golfers on here have high lighted a problem.
But we’re being told we’re wrong, it’s the comittiees fault, the course SR is wrong  ,everything but WHS at fault.

It’s wide open to abuse from players. Without breaking any rules.!!


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 22, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Are they ?
Player A can shoot 50 pts ,
Then over three weeks put 20 GP cards in and he’s back where he started, that score is gone from his record.
So he shoots 50 pts again what rules has he broken ?


We are going around in circles.
A lot of golfers on here have high lighted a problem.
But we’re being told we’re wrong, it’s the comittiees fault, the course SR is wrong  ,everything but WHS at fault.

It’s wide open to abuse from players. Without breaking any rules.!!
		
Click to expand...

This is contradictory. 

If players abuse the system, then they have broken the rules. They cannot both abuse the system, and not break the rules.
If someone submits 20 cards in 3 weeks without breaking the rules, and then shoots a great score, the score it perfectly legitimate. There is nothing wrong with it. It isnt a problem.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			This is contradictory.

If players abuse the system, then they have broken the rules. They cannot both abuse the system, and not break the rules.
If someone submits 20 cards in 3 weeks without breaking the rules, and then shoots a great score, the score it perfectly legitimate. There is nothing wrong with it. It isnt a problem.
		
Click to expand...

So player A goes out to play a GP card but only takes a 7 iron and a putter.
Shoots 100 gross.
He does this 20 times ,tries his best on every shot.
First comp he shoots 75 gross  because he has 14 clubs!
What rule has he broken.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			So player A goes out to play a GP card but only takes a 7 iron and a putter.
Shoots 100 gross.
He does this 20 times ,tries his best on every shot.
First comp he shoots 75 gross  because he has 14 clubs!
What rule has he broken.
		
Click to expand...

Rule 1.3

Taking only a 7 iron and putter is not an effort to make his best score possible on each hole. It is a deliberate action that is not acting with integrity, with the aim of or circumventing the Rules of Handicapping for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage in the 21st round.

He has broken the rule.


----------



## Imurg (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Rule 1.3

Taking only a 7 iron and putter is not an effort to make his best score possible on each hole. It is a deliberate action that is not acting with integrity, with the aim of or circumventing the Rules of Handicapping for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage in the 21st round.

He has broken the rule.
		
Click to expand...

Unless this player admits to the reduced number of clubs or youre out there with him....how do you, as a Committee member, know that this has happened?
How do you know that someone has or hasn't tried their best on every shot?
Yes, they're supposed to but you can be pretty sure that not everyone does every time.
The fact that you are able to sign in for a card, sit in the car park for a couple of hours, inventing your score, then punch it into the system without taking your clubs out of the boot shows how easy it is.
Obviously the vast majority don't do that but its also just as easy to deliberately miss a few putts to bump the numbers up.
Yes, again, you're not supposed to do it....but how do you know ?
You can't....simples.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Oct 23, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Unless this player admits to the reduced number of clubs or youre out there with him....how do you, as a Committee member, know that this has happened?
How do you know that someone has or hasn't tried their best on every shot?
Yes, they're supposed to but you can be pretty sure that not everyone does every time.
The fact that you are able to sign in for a card, sit in the car park for a couple of hours, inventing your score, then punch it into the system without taking your clubs out of the boot shows how easy it is.
Obviously the vast majority don't do that but its also just as easy to deliberately miss a few putts to bump the numbers up.
Yes, again, you're not supposed to do it....but how do you know ?
You can't....simples.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed…I can try very hard every shot but that might end up with a terrible score if I don’t play sensibly; try shots and take risks I might not normally take.  Most of us actually do this regularly, but we call it ‘poor course management’ rather than ‘not trying our best’.   Did it yesterday myself.  Should have taken my medicine on a par 5 and chances I’d have got a 6 (5 would still have been on).  Instead I didn‘t _think _hard enough and walked off with an 8. 

Thing is…situation is just as before when players will play their ‘stretch’ ability in a non-qualiying comps.  Recently had experience of a low 20s h/c fella playing 9 under his PH in a team comp, but as it wasnt a qualifier he didn’t get cut.  Truth is though, he was as much astonished as the rest of us at what he‘d done and we were v pleased for him and so I don’t think many felt ‘cheated’ or that his play really merited a cut.


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			So player A goes out to play a GP card but only takes a 7 iron and a putter.
Shoots 100 gross.
He does this 20 times ,tries his best on every shot.
First comp he shoots 75 gross  because he has 14 clubs!
What rule has he broken.
		
Click to expand...

Are any of the guys who've had high scores at your place doing this ? Not the 2 clubs but loads of GP scores


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 23, 2022)

There's a lot to take in here. I don't profess to understand it all BUT ... at my place last year I put loads of "cards" in off yellows and came down to 12.5. Yellows are an easy knock round. This made me uncompetitive in the seniors to extent I stopped bothering with comps during the summer where 42points were needed to Finnish top 10. This year, I've put cards in only off whites, much harder, and am now off 15. Still not competetive with the seniors due to baked ground conditions but better. My problem with understanding all this is that surely yellows or whites should make no difference. They have been rated differently so my h/c should be the same off either tees. This is obviously not the case, so the system is flawed and needs much more work.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

Crazyface said:



			There's a lot to take in here. I don't profess to understand it all BUT ... at my place last year I put loads of "cards" in off yellows and came down to 12.5. Yellows are an easy knock round. This made me uncompetitive in the seniors to extent I stopped bothering with comps during the summer where 42points were needed to Finnish top 10. This year, I've put cards in only off whites, much harder, and am now off 15. Still not competetive with the seniors due to baked ground conditions but better. My problem with understanding all this is that surely yellows or whites should make no difference. They have been rated differently so my h/c should be the same off either tees. This is obviously not the case, so the system is flawed and needs much more work.
		
Click to expand...

Or your form has deteriorated...


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Unless this player admits to the reduced number of clubs or youre out there with him....how do you, as a Committee member, know that this has happened?
How do you know that someone has or hasn't tried their best on every shot?
Yes, they're supposed to but you can be pretty sure that not everyone does every time.
The fact that you are able to sign in for a card, sit in the car park for a couple of hours, inventing your score, then punch it into the system without taking your clubs out of the boot shows how easy it is.
Obviously the vast majority don't do that but its also just as easy to deliberately miss a few putts to bump the numbers up.
Yes, again, you're not supposed to do it....but how do you know ?
You can't....simples.
		
Click to expand...

Rinse and repeat still cant be done in practice despite the paranoia hypotheticals, and urban legends.
Scoring 50 pts will cut at least 4 shots. Soft cap will apply, so the amount of golf to get those back is huge. Doing it a second time, impossible. Or would require submitting a score 7 days a weeke evey week  AND a hc secretary asleep at the wheel.
50 point is indeed wrong. But it is wrong by 7 or 8 shots! Not the 3 shots that someone, in theory, could engineer into their hc.

BTW, Carly Frost nails all the same cliches in her article.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Or your form has deteriorated...
		
Click to expand...

I think there is 1 shot difference between yellow and white tees at my club but I reckon yellows are 3-5 shots easier. The scores that have brought me down this year are the GP cards off yellows 🤷🏻‍♂️


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			I think there is 1 shot difference between yellow and white tees at my club but I reckon yellows are 3-5 shots easier. The scores that have brought me down this year are the GP cards off yellows 🤷🏻‍♂️
		
Click to expand...

Its possible. If so, it will show up in the differential analysis for both courses. Hc committee should see this and have the courses rerated.
Would be interesting to ask them - if they havent checked, then they arent doing their job. Or they may be able to show that globally either you are an outlier and mistaken, and it is within the expected scores when they look at them all. Or they may already know and agree with you - and just waiting for an assessor to come.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

upsidedown said:



			Are any of the guys who've had high scores at your place doing this ? Not the 2 clubs but loads of GP scores
		
Click to expand...

Some are .
Some have never put a GP score in.
We have four comps a week so no need for most


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Rule 1.3

Taking only a 7 iron and putter is not an effort to make his best score possible on each hole. It is a deliberate action that is not acting with integrity, with the aim of or circumventing the Rules of Handicapping for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage in the 21st round.

He has broken the rule.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn’t aware there is a minimum amount of clubs you must carry.
I did say he tried his best with every shot.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

Crazyface said:



			There's a lot to take in here. I don't profess to understand it all BUT ... at my place last year I put loads of "cards" in off yellows and came down to 12.5. Yellows are an easy knock round. This made me uncompetitive in the seniors to extent I stopped bothering with comps during the summer where 42points were needed to Finnish top 10. This year, I've put cards in only off whites, much harder, and am now off 15. Still not competetive with the seniors due to baked ground conditions but better. My problem with understanding all this is that surely yellows or whites should make no difference. They have been rated differently so my h/c should be the same off either tees. This is obviously not the case, so the system is flawed and needs much more work.
		
Click to expand...

My experience of white vs yellow is that off most tees I can’t reach the vast majority of bunkers.
Off the yellows I can reach them all.
So although it’s supposed to be easier,it actually plays harder for me.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 23, 2022)

We have been using WHS for many years here in OZ and the mid to high handicappers win all the Opens, very easily, with 44 to plus 50 points, then they flush cards through to regain there handicap, everyone out here sees it and its a joke.

Now a lot of the Open fields are down, missing single figure players.....does not take rocket science to figure out why.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			.
I did say he tried his best with every shot.
		
Click to expand...

But not his best score possible on each hole.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 23, 2022)

Imurg said:



			The fact that you are able to sign in for a card, sit in the car park for a couple of hours, inventing your score, then punch it into the system without taking your clubs out of the boot shows how easy it is.
		
Click to expand...

Is this what you are suggesting has happened with the high scores you have encountered?

What is the marker doing?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Its possible. *If so, it will show up in the differential analysis for both courses. Hc committee should see this and have the courses rerated.*
Would be interesting to ask them - if they havent checked, then they arent doing their job. Or they may be able to show that globally either you are an outlier and mistaken, and it is within the expected scores when they look at them all. Or they may already know and agree with you - and just waiting for an assessor to come.
		
Click to expand...

There is no report in the Scottish Golf system to review this. Does England golf have one?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 23, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			We have been using WHS for many years here in OZ and the mid to high handicappers win all the Opens, very easily, with 44 to plus 50 points, then they flush cards through to regain there handicap, everyone out here sees it and its a joke.

Now a lot of the Open fields are down, missing single figure players.....does not take rocket science to figure out why.
		
Click to expand...

Why are you playing stableford in opens? That ould seem to be your solution, and surely you also have divisions in opens as well?


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Some are .
Some have never put a GP score in.
We have four comps a week so no need for most
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, and of those who are putting in the scores and comps , are there serial winners or is spread around? There around 8-10 guys at our place that put in GP scores a lot but none of them have won this year .


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Unless this player admits to the reduced number of clubs or youre out there with him....how do you, as a Committee member, know that this has happened?
How do you know that someone has or hasn't tried their best on every shot?
Yes, they're supposed to but you can be pretty sure that not everyone does every time.
The fact that you are able to sign in for a card, sit in the car park for a couple of hours, inventing your score, then punch it into the system without taking your clubs out of the boot shows how easy it is.
Obviously the vast majority don't do that but its also just as easy to deliberately miss a few putts to bump the numbers up.
Yes, again, you're not supposed to do it....but how do you know ?
You can't....simples.
		
Click to expand...

That is blatant cheating though.
What I am talking about is it is so easy to manipulate without doing anything against the “rules”
But saying “someone hasn’t tried their best “ is no way to run a handicap system your correct.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

upsidedown said:



			Thanks, and of those who are putting in the scores and comps , are there serial winners or is spread around? There around 8-10 guys at our place that put in GP scores a lot but none of them have won this year .
		
Click to expand...

It’s spread around.
At ours it’s not high cappers it’s more middle cappers who were capable of 40/42 but now are shooting 46+.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

rulefan said:



			But not his best score possible on each hole.
		
Click to expand...

Is there a minimum club rule???

I am not aware of one !
So it is his best score with the clubs he is carrying.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 23, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Why are you playing stableford in opens? That ould seem to be your solution, and surely you also have divisions in opens as well?
		
Click to expand...

A lot of Opens out here have moved from Stroke to Stableford because high handicappers will not play Stroke, and clubs need people to play, one club near me has moved to Stableford after 50 years of Stroke to try to attact more players.

Plus in Opens there are no Divisions, hence scores of high 40's win.


----------



## IanM (Oct 23, 2022)

My card yesterday looked as if I was deliberately trying to inflate my handicap.

Sadly I wasn't.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 23, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			A lot of Opens out here have moved from Stroke to Stableford because high handicappers will not play Stroke, and clubs need people to play, one club near me has moved to Stableford after 50 years of Stroke to try to attact more players.

*Plus in Opens there are no Divisions,* hence scores of high 40's win.
		
Click to expand...

Yes that was my point, why isn't there? Even in stableford you can split by divisions, I've never seen an open here that wouldn't do that.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Is there a minimum club rule???

I am not aware of one !
So it is his best score with the clubs he is carrying.
		
Click to expand...

Using just a 7I & putter is obviously not an attempt to make the best score possible at each hole - I can't believe anyone would even try arguing that it is.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			There is no report in the Scottish Golf system to review this. Does England golf have one?
		
Click to expand...

I dont know tbh. Not on committee myself, but know our cttee had our course rerated last spring triggered by data they had for 2021. Both tees changed CR by about 0.6 up if I remember, and the slope of the longer tees increased by 3.
We will probably go winter rules over the next few weeks so will ask if they have a comparison between the two years.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Is there a minimum club rule???

I am not aware of one !
So it is his best score with the clubs he is carrying.
		
Click to expand...

There isnt. But you know that. Unless he thinks his best score can be achieved by only carrying his 7i and putter.

You can use your putter from the tee if you want. Putt left handed with the back of your 7 iron if you want. Grip your club upsidedown if you want.
No rules against them.

I dont think you are understanding the rule about integrity and not deliberately circumventing the hc system to manipulate your handicap.


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			It’s spread around.
At ours it’s not high cappers it’s more middle cappers who were capable of 40/42 but now are shooting 46+.
		
Click to expand...

Looking at ours, 
Top score is a 44 off 11 handicap,
 4 x 41 ( handicaps 20,18,19,1) , 
3 x 40 ( 22,16,14 ) 
2 x 39  ( 16,16 )
3 x 38  ( 8, 5, 1 )
2 x 37 ( 19,11 )
1 x 35  ( 11 )

That pretty much ties in with your place except the high scores


----------



## wjemather (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			I dont know tbh. Not on committee myself, but know our cttee had our course rerated last spring triggered by data they had for 2021. Both tees changed CR by about 0.6 up if I remember, and the slope of the longer tees increased by 3.
We will probably go winter rules over the next few weeks so will ask if they have a comparison between the two years.
		
Click to expand...

There's a "hole statistics" report, which can be filtered by handicap range, from which it would be a simple task to total them up.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

wjemather said:



			There's a "hole statistics" report, which can be filtered by handicap range, from which it would be a simple task to total them up.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe that was it. Our scores were 'normal' last year though, as far as scores looked to us members, and there was no clamour from the average member that scores were off the scale, or there was something wrong with the ratings.
The committee requested it purely based on the analysis, and I suppose were correct given the albeit small revisions. Scores this year wouldnt look obviously different. 40-42 wins most week. 39-40 some weeks. Very similar pattern to the UHS days.


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 23, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Using just a 7I & putter is obviously not an attempt to make the best score possible at each hole - I can't believe anyone would even try arguing that it is.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with you but one of my best scores around own course was a 5 under in a 3 clubs and a putter comp . 


Shorter winter course , where 3 wood and 7 iron hit most greens for me


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			There isnt. But you know that. Unless he thinks his best score can be achieved by only carrying his 7i and putter.

You can use your putter from the tee if you want. Putt left handed with the back of your 7 iron if you want. Grip your club upsidedown if you want.
No rules against them.

I dont think you are understanding the rule about integrity and not deliberately circumventing the hc system to manipulate your handicap.
		
Click to expand...

I understand it sadly some don’t.
But you said my comments were contradictory but I think they are not.
If there is no minimum club rule they are not breaking any rule as long as they try their best with the clubs they have.
Putting integrity into a rule is wide open to interpretation imo.
What you think is wrong might not be what others think and vice versa.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

upsidedown said:



			Looking at ours,
Top score is a 44 off 11 handicap,
4 x 41 ( handicaps 20,18,19,1) ,
3 x 40 ( 22,16,14 )
2 x 39  ( 16,16 )
3 x 38  ( 8, 5, 1 )
2 x 37 ( 19,11 )
1 x 35  ( 11 )

That pretty much ties in with your place except the high scores
		
Click to expand...

Yes it does.
In 130 yrs nobody shot sub 60 .
Since WHS there has been 7 x 59 nett.
It’s calmed down now as I think most came from the initial change over putting caps up.
But 45/46 is the new 42 pts and is more or less what you need to have any chance.

41 off 1 is quite impressive by the way.


----------



## upsidedown (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			41 off 1 is quite impressive by the way.
		
Click to expand...

He had 7 birdies , 2 bogies and blobbed the last !!. We keep telling him to double check his birth certificate to get him into the Seniors, alas he's only 51


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 23, 2022)

upsidedown said:



			He had 7 birdies , 2 bogies and blobbed the last !!. We keep telling him to double check his birth certificate to get him into the Seniors, alas he's only 51 

Click to expand...

Clearly protecting his handicap. It is clear all abilities of golfer are cheating


----------



## Imurg (Oct 23, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Is this what you are suggesting has happened with the high scores you have encountered?

What is the marker doing?
		
Click to expand...

Probably sitting next to him in the car park...
I'm not suggesting anything...just pointing out what could happen
And with, potentially hundreds of GP play cards per week so very few get checked and no booking system so no record of who's been on the course...it's no inconceivable. 
I don't believe it's happening at my club
It's not often that a comp is won with much more than 40 points or Nett 4 under
It does happen but its not regular and we certainly haven't had 50 points/nett 14 under.
But other clubs have.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			I understand it sadly some don’t.
But you said my comments were contradictory but I think they are not.
If there is no minimum club rule they are not breaking any rule as long as they try their best with the clubs they have.
Putting integrity into a rule is wide open to interpretation imo.
What you think is wrong might not be what others think and vice versa.
		
Click to expand...

You cannot abuse the system without breaking the rules.

Playing with an unreasonable selection of clubs does not constitute trying to make the best score possible at each hole, so is not acceptable for handicapping. This is obvious. How hard you try with your one club is irrelevant.


----------



## IanM (Oct 23, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Is this what you are suggesting has happened with the high scores you have encountered?

What is the marker doing?
		
Click to expand...

He's keying in his bogus score for the other bloke to mark!


----------



## Wabinez (Oct 23, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			A lot of Opens out here have moved from Stroke to Stableford because high handicappers will not play Stroke, and clubs need people to play, one club near me has moved to Stableford after 50 years of Stroke to try to attact more players.

Plus in Opens there are no Divisions, hence scores of high 40's win.
		
Click to expand...

maybe you should start playing scratch opens then? And if they don’t exist, maybe clubs should start running them


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Its possible. If so, it will show up in the differential analysis for both courses. Hc committee should see this and have the courses rerated.
Would be interesting to ask them - if they havent checked, then they arent doing their job. Or they may be able to show that globally either you are an outlier and mistaken, and it is within the expected scores when they look at them all. Or they may already know and agree with you - and just waiting for an assessor to come.
		
Click to expand...

The difficulty with this is the scheduling of the re-rating...you cant just apply to have your course re-rated "next month please"....some counties are on a 4 or 5 year rotation for rating courses. We last had ours done in 2017....we were due to have it done again this year but it was postponed until next year.


----------



## nickjdavis (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			My experience of white vs yellow is that off most tees I can’t reach the vast majority of bunkers.
Off the yellows I can reach them all.
So although it’s supposed to be easier,it actually plays harder for me.
		
Click to expand...

...and that should be reflected in the course rating for a bogey golfer....which would have an effect on the slope which would give you a different course handicap....however that might then be countered by the fact that it would be harder for you to reach the green with your second shot off the whites than it would off the yellows (assuming you miss the bunker!!).....there are a lot of swings and roundabouts on a golf hole in terms of its rating....the hole may giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!!!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 23, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			The difficulty with this is the scheduling of the re-rating...you cant just apply to have your course re-rated "next month please"....some counties are on a 4 or 5 year rotation for rating courses. We last had ours done in 2017....we were due to have it done again this year but it was postponed until next year.
		
Click to expand...

Scotland it's 10 years, but you're correct, unless you make a major course change, they won;t just come on request.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 23, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Scotland it's 10 years, but you're correct, unless you make a major course change, they won;t just come on request.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting, we had changes 3 years ago and it was re rated after that, but something wasn't right and was done again in spring and they changed all the Si, still not right, so getting done again. So will be 3 times in 3 years


----------



## wjemather (Oct 23, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			Interesting, we had changes 3 years ago and it was re rated after that, but *something wasn't right* and was done again in spring and they changed all the Si, *still not right*, so getting done again. So will be 3 times in 3 years
		
Click to expand...

That's a bit vague. Do you have any details as to what is thought to be "not right", and by who?


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 23, 2022)

wjemather said:



			That's a bit vague. Do you have any details as to what is thought to be "not right", and by who?
		
Click to expand...

I can't remember most of the changes other that the Si of 3 holes that were changed, when the course did the changes. Then the last change was the si moved to odds and evens on the front and back as St 1 went to 2 and vice vers. 4th was si18 that switched to 16 and and 15th which was si 12 is now si 18. Also off the white I think anyone over 3 got an extra shot. The 3rd which was si 14 is now 8, because it wa proving to be 1.5 shots higher. Not sure exactly what the issue is but they had already announced the coursevwas being released rated again. 

I'm only recounting this from memory as the club bulletin was some months ago.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

Stroke index changes dont need a course assessment. So maybe one wasnt actually done. Club can assign SI autonomously, and while with guidelines, essentially, as it wants.


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 23, 2022)

Crazyface said:



			There's a lot to take in here. I don't profess to understand it all BUT ... at my place last year I put loads of "cards" in off yellows and came down to 12.5. Yellows are an easy knock round. This made me uncompetitive in the seniors to extent I stopped bothering with comps during the summer where 42points were needed to Finnish top 10. This year, I've put cards in only off whites, much harder, and am now off 15. Still not competetive with the seniors due to baked ground conditions but better. My problem with understanding all this is that surely yellows or whites should make no difference. They have been rated differently so my h/c should be the same off either tees. This is obviously not the case, so the system is flawed and needs much more work.
		
Click to expand...


Where I play the difference in CRs for white and yellow is 1.4. For me the difference is 3 hence just based upon hole length on 3 holes. I will not put in GP cards off the yellow tees for that reason . Sadly the majority of Senior comps are off the yellows so it still affects my H.I..


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Stroke index changes dont need a course assessment. So maybe one wasnt actually done. Club can assign SI autonomously, and while with guidelines, essentially, as it wants.
		
Click to expand...

Why would the club tell us the course had been re rated and was going to be again? We had 3 new holes and a new Sg board went up by the 1st tee with changes to handicap at the start of this season, as I said there were increases to certain handicaps


----------



## jim8flog (Oct 23, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			I can't remember most of the changes other that the Si of 3 holes that were changed, when the course did the changes. Then the last change was the si moved to odds and evens on the front and back as St 1 went to 2 and vice vers. 4th was si18 that switched to 16 and and 15th which was si 12 is now si 18. Also off the white I think anyone over 3 got an extra shot. The 3rd which was si 14 is now 8, because it wa proving to be 1.5 shots higher. Not sure exactly what the issue is but they had already announced the coursevwas being released rated again.

I'm only recounting this from memory as the club bulletin was some months ago.
		
Click to expand...

Odds on one half and evens on the other half is actually a recommendation since the WHS came in. 

As already said it is your club committee that sets the SIs.
*Appendix E - Stroke Index Allocation*
The _Rules of Golf_ state: “The Committee is responsible for publishing on the scorecard or somewhere else that is visible (for example, near the first tee) the order of holes at which handicap strokes are to be given or received.” (See _Rules of Golf_, Committee Procedures, Rule 5I (4)


If you are interested in reading - Appendix E Rules of Handicapping.

https://www.randa.org/roh/appendices/appendix-e


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 23, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			Odds on one half and evens on the other half is actually a recommendation since the WHS came in. As already said it is your club committee that sets the SIs.

If you are interested in reading - Appendix E Rules of Handicapping.

https://www.randa.org/roh/appendices/appendix-e

Click to expand...

They only did the odds and evens this year and informed us the course had had to be re rated. Then got another to say it was getting done again at the start of next season.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			They only did the odds and evens this year and informed us the course had had to be re rated. Then got another to say it was getting done again at the start of next season.
		
Click to expand...

But were there actually CR and Slope revisions the first time. Or is the committee communication poor, and by assessment, they just mean they, themselves, may revise the indexes. If it was reassessed once, and no changes made, then most unlikely it is being done a third time.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			But were there actually CR and Slope revisions the first time. Or is the committee communication poor, and by assessment, they just mean they, themselves, may revise the indexes. If it was reassessed once, and no changes made, then most unlikely it is being done a third time.
		
Click to expand...

Yes they built 3 new holes


----------



## rulefan (Oct 23, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			Yes they built 3 new holes
		
Click to expand...

That explains why the course was (re)rated. It isn't the same course.
But to confirm what others have said - rating has nothing to do with stroke indices. That is the club's business.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 23, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			I can't remember most of the changes other that the Si of 3 holes that were changed, when the course did the changes. Then the last change was the si moved to odds and evens on the front and back as St 1 went to 2 and vice vers. 4th was si18 that switched to 16 and and 15th which was si 12 is now si 18. Also off the white I think anyone over 3 got an extra shot. The 3rd which was si 14 is now 8, because it wa proving to be 1.5 shots higher. Not sure exactly what the issue is but they had already announced the coursevwas being released rated again.

I'm only recounting this from memory as the club bulletin was some months ago.
		
Click to expand...

Backsticks is correct, SI is wholly within the club's discretion. There are recomendations, but there is no need to stick to them.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 23, 2022)

rulefan said:



			That explains why the course was (re)rated. It isn't the same course.
But to confirm what others have said - rating has nothing to do with stroke indices. That is the club's business.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure why I have to keep saying it the CR was changed at the start of the season, we got a new board with all the handicap allowances changed.  The club has informed  the members that the course is due to be re rated again. 
🙄


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 23, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Backsticks is correct, SI is wholly within the club's discretion. There are recomendations, but there is no need to stick to them.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't, but the course was re rated and there were changes to the number of strokes some handicaps got. The club has told the members its being done again. I don't doubt the CR and si are not connected or done by anyone outside the club.  I'd even expect it will change again if the motion being put forward at the AGM goes though, which will be the moving of most of the new fairway  bunkers as they are in the wrong place for all the club comps, this will start over winter if passed.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

wjemather said:



			You cannot abuse the system without breaking the rules.

Playing with an unreasonable selection of clubs does not constitute trying to make the best score possible at each hole, so is not acceptable for handicapping. This is obvious. How hard you try with your one club is irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

So what is a reasonable selection of clubs as it isn’t mentioned in rule 1.3.?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

nickjdavis said:



			...and that should be reflected in the course rating for a bogey golfer....which would have an effect on the slope which would give you a different course handicap....however that might then be countered by the fact that it would be harder for you to reach the green with your second shot off the whites than it would off the yellows (assuming you miss the bunker!!).....there are a lot of swings and roundabouts on a golf hole in terms of its rating....the hole may giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!!!
		
Click to expand...

 Yes I appreciate that .
But was just giving my personal experience.
I am still single figures but age means my drives are just shy of 240 yds .
This is mainly short of most bunkers on my course.
But off the yellows those same bunkers are bang in my distance.
But one more club second shots off the whites suit me better than long bunker shots off the yellows.
Better accuracy off the tee is the obvious answer.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 23, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			So what is a reasonable selection of clubs as it isn’t mentioned in rule 1.3.?
		
Click to expand...

Up to 14 that the golfer considers will give him a best chance of a scoring well. He cannot take more than 14, and the rules govern the penalty if he does. It wasnt always thus though, and the following is from a Golf Digest article :

_“OK, but why a limit and why 14?” As with most rules that involve equipment, advancing technology was one of the culprits.
For years players were content to go into battle armed with a relatively slim array of hickory-shafted weapons. That changed when the steel shaft was universally approved for use in 1929 (the USGA had approved its use earlier but it took some time for the R&A to get on board). Some golfers were torn, not sure they wanted to go to steel because they were unfamiliar with how those clubs would react, but not wanting to pass on potentially better equipment. The solution for many became to have a bag that incorporated both hickory and steel clubs, sending the number of sticks in the bag soaring.
Good news for players. Bad news for the caddies. Those poor bastards often ended up lugging two bags instead of one—and caddies back then weren’t making the kind of scratch they do now. Lawson Little was perhaps the most infamous offender, as the winner of the 1934 and 1935 U.S. and British Amateurs often had 30 clubs at his disposal. Some players went with a set of right-handed and left-handed clubs and a survey at the 1935 U.S. Open showed the average number of clubs in a contestant’s bag was 18.
At this point, the USGA and R&A had seen enough. Just as with today in which the governing bodies are fretting about the role of technology in the game, the rulesmakers back then were afraid that such a large number of clubs would make skill less prominent. Additionally, it provided an advantage for well-to-do golfers who had the wherewithal to purchase more clubs than their less-fortunate brethren.
In 1936 the USGA and R&A adopted the 14-club limit with it going into effect in 1938. It has been in effect since.
Oh, and why 14? No one really knows, although it has been surmised that most common set makeup at the time was four woods, nine irons and a putter. You don’t even need a calculator to know that’s 14 bats._

There are no known cases of sane golfers taking to the course believing they can make their best score by only bringing a 7i and a putter. 3 club challenges can be fun. But even with a 3rd club, there is no logical argument against, that having extra clubs along for the ride, in the off chance that they might be needed, is a help rather than hindrance. Note that it makes no mention of requiring golfers to use both hands to hold the club, or that it is not against the rules nor spirit of handicap golf to make a shot while trying to balance a full glass of beer on one's head, thought that may be covered under the use of artificial aids. Rulefan ?

Rule 1.3 is written with the rational and sane in mind only, and I think that is a reasonable position.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Up to 14 that the golfer considers will give him a best chance of a scoring well. He cannot take more than 14, and the rules govern the penalty if he does. It wasnt always thus though, and the following is from a Golf Digest article :

_“OK, but why a limit and why 14?” As with most rules that involve equipment, advancing technology was one of the culprits.
For years players were content to go into battle armed with a relatively slim array of hickory-shafted weapons. That changed when the steel shaft was universally approved for use in 1929 (the USGA had approved its use earlier but it took some time for the R&A to get on board). Some golfers were torn, not sure they wanted to go to steel because they were unfamiliar with how those clubs would react, but not wanting to pass on potentially better equipment. The solution for many became to have a bag that incorporated both hickory and steel clubs, sending the number of sticks in the bag soaring.
Good news for players. Bad news for the caddies. Those poor bastards often ended up lugging two bags instead of one—and caddies back then weren’t making the kind of scratch they do now. Lawson Little was perhaps the most infamous offender, as the winner of the 1934 and 1935 U.S. and British Amateurs often had 30 clubs at his disposal. Some players went with a set of right-handed and left-handed clubs and a survey at the 1935 U.S. Open showed the average number of clubs in a contestant’s bag was 18.
At this point, the USGA and R&A had seen enough. Just as with today in which the governing bodies are fretting about the role of technology in the game, the rulesmakers back then were afraid that such a large number of clubs would make skill less prominent. Additionally, it provided an advantage for well-to-do golfers who had the wherewithal to purchase more clubs than their less-fortunate brethren.
In 1936 the USGA and R&A adopted the 14-club limit with it going into effect in 1938. It has been in effect since.
Oh, and why 14? No one really knows, although it has been surmised that most common set makeup at the time was four woods, nine irons and a putter. You don’t even need a calculator to know that’s 14 bats._

There are no known cases of sane golfers taking to the course believing they can make their best score by only bringing a 7i and a putter. 3 club challenges can be fun. But even with a 3rd club, there is no logical argument against, that having extra clubs along for the ride, in the off chance that they might be needed, is a help rather than hindrance. Note that it makes no mention of requiring golfers to use both hands to hold the club, or that it is not against the rules nor spirit of handicap golf to make a shot while trying to balance a full glass of beer on one's head, thought that may be covered under the use of artificial aids. Rulefan ?

Rule 1.3 is written with the rational and sane in mind only, and I think that is a reasonable position.
		
Click to expand...

Like I said then they are not breaking any rules. ( up to 14 )
Wether it’s reasonable or not is up for discussion 

On the 3 club question I would wager a sand wedge would make a big difference on some courses.


----------



## rulefan (Oct 23, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			that may be covered under the use of artificial aids. Rulefan ?
		
Click to expand...

In next year as 10.2c except if it's craft brew.


----------



## Slab (Oct 24, 2022)

Just as an FYI and sorry if this is already known... 

3 and 5 club Comps are not acceptable for submitting for handicap (rule 2)
Any restriction on number of clubs makes it not an acceptable format
So while a number of clubs isn't stated its clear that using so few clubs isn't seen as good enough 
It'd be pretty strange if GP rounds with just 3 clubs were given the thumbs up when it's a no no for a comp?


----------



## sunshine (Oct 24, 2022)

Imurg said:



			The fact that you are able to sign in for a card, sit in the car park for a couple of hours, inventing your score, then punch it into the system without taking your clubs out of the boot shows how easy it is
		
Click to expand...

ok, but what his this got to do with WHS? You're just describing blatant cheating and collusion, which can happen in any handicap system, old or new.


----------



## sunshine (Oct 24, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes there’s been a lot of complaints
Simple answer is they are not breaking any rules.
It’s wide open to abuse ,and some are taking advantage.
		
Click to expand...

Based on your comments (and the lengthy responses from the rules gang), I sense the problem at your club is largely "gamesmanship" rather than a problem with the rules. A bit like a footballer throwing himself to the ground when he feels a bit of contact, "the defender stuck his leg out and the striker had every right to go down there".

Sounds like the issue is the culture at the golf club.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Oct 24, 2022)

Slab said:



			Just as an FYI and sorry if this is already known...

3 and 5 club Comps are not acceptable for submitting for handicap (rule 2)
Any restriction on number of clubs makes it not an acceptable format
So while a number of clubs isn't stated its clear that using so few clubs isn't seen as good enough
It'd be pretty strange if GP rounds with just 3 clubs were given the thumbs up when it's a no no for a comp?
		
Click to expand...

3 clubs in a GP round would be a choice. Forcing people to artificially carry less is why that rule is there.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 24, 2022)

sunshine said:



			Based on your comments (and the lengthy responses from the rules gang), I sense the problem at your club is largely "gamesmanship" rather than a problem with the rules. A bit like a footballer throwing himself to the ground when he feels a bit of contact, "the defender stuck his leg out and the striker had every right to go down there".

Sounds like the issue is the culture at the golf club.
		
Click to expand...

Yes that’s perfectly possible .
But not just mine given the posts on here.
My main point is ,  it’s so much easier to do it under WHS than the old system.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 24, 2022)

I played today and had to give one player 40 shots, I find if I have a day out then 40-42 points max for me, but these mid to high handicappers can score in excess of 45 points with ease.

ps I shot 6 over for 34 points and came nowhere, which I new would happen.

I play in a lot of Open events and have found that more and more of the single figure golfers are not entering, when I ask why not they comment that they are not competitive anymore so why bother, I do not know what the solution is, but it is a trend out here in OZ.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 24, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			I played today and had to give one player 40 shots, I find if I have a day out then 40-42 points max for me, but these mid to high handicappers can score in excess of 45 points with ease.

ps I shot 6 over for 34 points and came nowhere, which I new would happen.

I play in a lot of Open events and have found that more and more of the single figure golfers are not entering, when I ask why not they comment that they are not competitive anymore so why bother, I do not know what the solution is, but it is a trend out here in OZ.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody can score in excess of 45 points with ease unless their handicap is wrong. This is a club issue, not a WHS issue.

34 points generally should come nowhere. So nothing wrong there. Two off your HI is probably the expected score. As you say, you knew it would happen, so outcome and your guess from experience were consistent. (the 6 over is nice golf still, though irrelevant in itself to the handicpped competition you were playing).


----------



## rosecott (Oct 24, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes that’s perfectly possible .
But not just mine given the posts on here.
My main point is ,  *it’s so much easier to do it under WHS than the old system*.
		
Click to expand...

No real difference between then and now - as long as you had someone to help you cheat.


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 24, 2022)

Two players together. Play 18 holes. Collude to mark whatever scores they wish.
Cheating is cheating, whatever the system.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 24, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes that’s perfectly possible .
But not just mine given the posts on here.
My main point is ,  it’s so much easier to do it under WHS than the old system.
		
Click to expand...

The ease of submitting scores without committee intervention is as a result of technology rather than the system. The same technologies and processes would have been introduced had we kept the old UHS system.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 24, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			I played today and had to give one player 40 shots, I find if I have a day out then 40-42 points max for me, but these mid to high handicappers can score in excess of 45 points with ease.

ps I shot 6 over for 34 points and came nowhere, which I new would happen.

I play in a lot of Open events and have found that more and more of the single figure golfers are not entering, when I ask why not they comment that they are not competitive anymore so why bother, I do not know what the solution is, but it is a trend out here in OZ.
		
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, we have a Sunday Stableford 3 times a month, none of the lower handicap s enter this any longer. Used to even get the really low guys enter the two that were +6 used to play.  If you scored 37/38 points you would pretty much win now its 45. However we don't have that many high handicaps, the winners are mosty mid teen. 
Was you game not match play?


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 24, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			I get what you are saying, we have a Sunday Stableford 3 times a month, none of the lower handicap s enter this any longer. Used to even get the really low guys enter the two that were +6 used to play.  If you scored 37/38 points you would pretty much win now its 45. However we don't have that many high handicaps, the winners are mosty mid teen.
Was you game not match play?
		
Click to expand...

No it was a Vet's stableford event 116 players in the field from all over, don't think I could play match play against someone receiving 40 shots, it would just do my head in.


----------



## wjemather (Oct 24, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			I played today and had to give one player 40 shots, I find if I have a day out then 40-42 points max for me, but these *mid to high handicappers can score in excess of 45 points with ease*.

ps I shot 6 over for *34 points and came nowhere*, which I new would happen.

I play in a lot of Open events and have found that more and more of the single figure golfers are not entering, when I ask why not they comment that they are *not competitive anymore* so why bother, I do not know what the solution is, but it is a trend out here in OZ.
		
Click to expand...

If they could do it with ease, they wouldn't be mid-high handicappers. For them, they need to have a great day to score that.

So now we're complaining about not winning with over-handicap scores? This is ridiculous.

The solution is to educate these golfers to the fact that, in a field of 100, they have a 1 in 100 chance of winning - they seem to think being a better player entitles them to a much greater chance than that, even when scoring well below their best. It's also much healthier to approach opens (especially handicap ones) as a good value opportunity to play elsewhere and just enjoy the day rather than go pot-hunting.


----------



## AussieKB (Oct 24, 2022)

wjemather said:



			If they could do it with ease, they wouldn't be mid-high handicappers. For them, they need to have a great day to score that.

So now we're complaining about not winning with over-handicap scores? This is ridiculous.

The solution is to educate these golfers to the fact that, in a field of 100, they have a 1 in 100 chance of winning - they seem to think being a better player entitles them to a much greater chance than that, even when scoring well below their best.
		
Click to expand...

Where did I complain about not winning ? I new that I had not played well enough to win, last event a player from my club won with 48 points, I congratulated him, but for low markers to have that score is unrealistic.....for me 8 under par is not achievable.


----------



## patricks148 (Oct 24, 2022)

AussieKB said:



			No it was a Vet's stableford event 116 players in the field from all over, don't think I could play match play against someone receiving 40 shots, it would just do my head in.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it'd difficult mentally giving that number of shots. We don't have many guys higher that 25, but some of the ladies games have real disparity in games, on of my friends wives was telling me about a game she had this year where she was giving 50 shots 🤣
Stableford is always going to suit Higher handicaps. The seniors that are stableford I just don't bother any longer, just not competitive in them.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 24, 2022)

wjemather said:



			The ease of submitting scores without committee intervention is as a result of technology rather than the system. The same technologies and processes would have been introduced had we kept the old UHS system.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I agree but under the old system you only got .1 back.
But now it can significantly change your HI up or down.
I do think that is an issue.
There will always be cheats but WHS / technology has made it much easier. Imo.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 24, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Nobody can score in excess of 45 points with ease unless their handicap is wrong. This is a club issue, not a WHS issue.

34 points generally should come nowhere. So nothing wrong there. Two off your HI is probably the expected score. As you say, you knew it would happen, so outcome and your guess from experience were consistent. (the 6 over is nice golf still, though irrelevant in itself to the handicpped competition you were playing).
		
Click to expand...

How is that a “club issue” in an open where players could come from 100 different clubs?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 24, 2022)

rosecott said:



			No real difference between then and now - as long as you had someone to help you cheat.
		
Click to expand...

You got .1 back before.
You can change your HI by a few shots now!
There is a difference .


----------



## chellie (Oct 24, 2022)

patricks148 said:



			Yes it'd difficult mentally giving that number of shots. We don't have many guys higher that 25, but *some of the ladies games have real disparity in games, on of my friends wives was telling me about a game she had this year where she was giving 50 shots* 🤣
Stableford is always going to suit Higher handicaps. The seniors that are stableford I just don't bother any longer, just not competitive in them.
		
Click to expand...

Should be more than one matchplay competition then with handicap splits eg 30.0 and above indexes. Was bad enough giving 14 shots nearly each time in interclub matches.


----------



## Slab (Oct 25, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Yes I agree but *under the old system you only got .1 back.
But now it can significantly change your HI up or down.*
I do think that is an issue.
There will always be cheats but WHS / technology has made it much easier. Imo.
		
Click to expand...

Just curious (this is my first full year using WHS) how much can one round affect a players handicap index? (I know this might be how long is a piece of string) but ballpark what have folk seen happen to a HI from one poor round (compared with the .1 of old)


----------



## wjemather (Oct 25, 2022)

Slab said:



			Just curious (this is my first full year using WHS) how much can one round affect a players handicap index? (I know this might be how long is a piece of string) but ballpark what have folk seen happen to a HI from one poor round (compared with the .1 of old)
		
Click to expand...

In theory, an increase of up to 5 can happen but in reality increases are small (<<1), and more often than not, there will no change at all.


----------



## Wabinez (Oct 25, 2022)

Slab said:



			Just curious (this is my first full year using WHS) how much can one round affect a players handicap index? (I know this might be how long is a piece of string) but ballpark what have folk seen happen to a HI from one poor round (compared with the .1 of old)
		
Click to expand...

too many variables to give an accurate answer.

It depends on the other scores in the players record, what is counting, what isn't counting etc.

I have had a round where I have gone up 0.1, I have had rounds where no change is made. I have also had rounds where I have gone up 0.5, despite shooting +5 (to CR, not par) as the score dropping off had a minus differential.

Massive changes are very few and far between.

Easiest way of working out the rough figure for an adjustment is to take work out the difference between the differential dropping off, and the new differential that will feature as part of the 8 scores.  Take that number and divide by 8.

eg. Differential dropping off = -0.2
Differential going on to record= 4

Difference: 4.2

divide 4.2 by 8 = 0.525

Handicap increase of 0.525 (rounded to 0.5)


----------



## abjectplop (Oct 25, 2022)

Slab said:



			Just curious (this is my first full year using WHS) how much can one round affect a players handicap index? (I know this might be how long is a piece of string) but ballpark what have folk seen happen to a HI from one poor round (compared with the .1 of old)
		
Click to expand...

The bigger jumps come when your really good rounds drop off and you haven't replaced them with anything nearly as good. I had a 2.9 differential drop off and the next best score to go onto my record was a differential of around 11 so index goes up by more than 1 full shot.


----------



## banjofred (Oct 25, 2022)

Slab said:



			Just curious (this is my first full year using WHS) how much can one round affect a players handicap index? (I know this might be how long is a piece of string) but ballpark what have folk seen happen to a HI from one poor round (compared with the .1 of old)
		
Click to expand...

I turn in a lot of casual rounds...since joining the new club towards the end of March I'm about 45 rounds turned in, only 2 have been comps. I'll play a lot more comps this next year. About a month ago I was down to 6.2 but I'm going through another bad patch and am back up to 8.0 already. One or two good rounds and I can go back down to under 7.....although another couple of bad rounds and I'll be up to around 8.5. I just like to turn in rounds.....if I only turned in the occasional comp things wouldn't change much at all. I've said it before......if I wanted to cheat it would be real easy to do so.


----------



## Lilyhawk (Oct 25, 2022)

My next 2 rounds coming off have score differentials of 3.5 and 4.3, and they will be replaced by 10.3's (unless the 2 rounds I'll be playing I somehow miraculously learn how to play golf again). That'll be quite a jump, but not sure what it'll be as I'll be crossing the "half-way line" of my index going up more than 5 shots in a year. My understanding is that once your index have gone up 2.5 shots within the space of a year then the rate will half? I might be wrong though. The only thing I know 100% is that I've forgotten how to play the golf of which I know I'm capable of. But that's for another thread.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 25, 2022)

Slab said:



			Just curious (this is my first full year using WHS) how much can one round affect a players handicap index? (I know this might be how long is a piece of string) but ballpark what have folk seen happen to a HI from one poor round (compared with the .1 of old)
		
Click to expand...

My Index is 8.9. If, for example, I was in a position to lose by best round in 20 and the round that replaced it was outside my top 8, my Index would increase by 0.7. So, handicaps can jump quite rapidly, and I'm sure there are plenty of other golfers, particularly higher handicappers, that could see bigger jumps.

What is more though, it is not uncommon for me to have my good scores bunched together (and that would be even more the case, if a golfer had their bad scores bunched together if they went through a period of intentional handicap building). So, you could submit 4 or 5 scores, lose 4 or 5 of your best 8, and go up very very quickly.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 25, 2022)

Lilyhawk said:



			My next 2 rounds coming off have score differentials of 3.5 and 4.3, and they will be replaced by 10.3's (unless the 2 rounds I'll be playing I somehow miraculously learn how to play golf again). That'll be quite a jump, but not sure what it'll be as I'll be crossing the "half-way line" of my index going up more than 5 shots in a year. My understanding is that once your index have gone up *2.5 shots* within the space of a year then the rate will half? I might be wrong though. The only thing I know 100% is that I've forgotten how to play the golf of which I know I'm capable of. But that's for another thread.
		
Click to expand...

The soft cap is 3.0 shots, from your lowest index, before any extra above that is halved.


----------



## Slab (Oct 25, 2022)

Cheers for rapid replies

It's likely that maybe half a shot to a shot would be a chunky change and more than one shot would be much rarer. 
It seems fair to say then that handicap index changing 'significantly' is really only true if compared to the 0.1 system, and through normal use it'll typically only make up to a one shot difference on a bad day


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 25, 2022)

Slab said:



			Cheers for rapid replies

It's likely that maybe half a shot to a shot would be a chunky change and more than one shot would be much rarer.
It seems fair to say then that handicap index changing 'significantly' is really only true if compared to the 0.1 system, and through normal use it'll typically only make up to a one shot difference on a bad day
		
Click to expand...

Going back to my point, my handicap has increased by 2 shots over a weekend before. In fact, I believe my course handicap went up by 3 shots in the space of 2-3 rounds before.


----------



## Lilyhawk (Oct 25, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			The soft cap is 3.0 shots, from your lowest index, before any extra above that is halved.
		
Click to expand...

Ah ok. That will be triggered then after the next two, again, if nothing spectacular happens.


----------



## LincolnShep (Oct 25, 2022)

Slab said:



			Just curious (this is my first full year using WHS) how much can one round affect a players handicap index? (I know this might be how long is a piece of string) but ballpark what have folk seen happen to a HI from one poor round (compared with the .1 of old)
		
Click to expand...

Since WHS began, I've put in 43 cards, my index during that time has been between 16.2 and 21.0. 

15 of the rounds have resulted in no change at all. My biggest cut was -1.3 and biggest increase was +1.0. The average of the increases is +0.4 and the average of the cuts is -0.5.


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 25, 2022)

LincolnShep said:



			Since WHS began, I've put in 43 cards, my index during that time has been between 16.2 and 21.0.

15 of the rounds have resulted in no change at all. My biggest cut was -1.3 and biggest increase was +1.0. The average of the increases is +0.4 and the average of the cuts is -0.5.
View attachment 44939

Click to expand...

I'd expect nothing less in your detailed response


----------



## Backsticks (Oct 25, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			You got .1 back before.
You can change your HI by a few shots now!
There is a difference .
		
Click to expand...

Not much though. You could get a shot back before. Now you can get a couple, but its quite a few rounds to do that. And exceeding three takes a LOT of bad golf.
So gaining 1 or 2 shots more than before does NOT explain 50 points or Net 59s.


----------



## JonnyGutteridge (Oct 25, 2022)

I wonder where you draw the line on someone not playing to the best of their ability in a handicap counting round…

My mate is absolutely terrible at course management. If I gave him a pitching wedge and a putter, he would shoot better scores than he does with 14 clubs. Yet I just read on here that if someone chose to just take a 7 iron for every shot, they’d not falling foul of the rules somehow?
Is he not falling foul by using driver on a narrow par 4, making a quadruple bogey when he has a shot and could hit wedge wedge wedge and make a 4 or a 5…

What about towards the end of some of my competition rounds this year? I could be +6 with 3 holes left, but I only get 4 shots… I’m not interested in shooting a +6.. so I’ve made double bogeys when trying to make birdies and end up with a +9 - meaning some of these rounds count towards my best 8 and I end up with a higher handicap.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 25, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			I wonder where you draw the line on someone not playing to the best of their ability in a handicap counting round…

My mate is absolutely terrible at course management. If I gave him a pitching wedge and a putter, he would shoot better scores than he does with 14 clubs. Yet I just read on here that if someone chose to just take a 7 iron for every shot, they’d not falling foul of the rules somehow?
Is he not falling foul by using driver on a narrow par 4, making a quadruple bogey when he has a shot and could hit wedge wedge wedge and make a 4 or a 5…

What about towards the end of some of my competition rounds this year? I could be +6 with 3 holes left, but I only get 4 shots… I’m not interested in shooting a +6.. so I’ve made double bogeys when trying to make birdies and end up with a +9 - meaning some of these rounds count towards my best 8 and I end up with a higher handicap.
		
Click to expand...

It was the interpretation of the rule. 1.3.
It says “ up to 14 clubs.”
I asked if 1 is up to 14.
But apparently only having 1 and a putter is not trying to get your best score.
But my question “ what is an acceptable number of clubs” hasn’t been answered.!


----------



## Swango1980 (Oct 25, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			I wonder where you draw the line on someone not playing to the best of their ability in a handicap counting round…

My mate is absolutely terrible at course management. If I gave him a pitching wedge and a putter, he would shoot better scores than he does with 14 clubs. Yet I just read on here that if someone chose to just take a 7 iron for every shot, they’d not falling foul of the rules somehow?
Is he not falling foul by using driver on a narrow par 4, making a quadruple bogey when he has a shot and could hit wedge wedge wedge and make a 4 or a 5…

What about towards the end of some of my competition rounds this year? I could be +6 with 3 holes left, but I only get 4 shots… I’m not interested in shooting a +6.. so I’ve made double bogeys when trying to make birdies and end up with a +9 - meaning some of these rounds count towards my best 8 and I end up with a higher handicap.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with course management, or lack of it, when counting towards handicap. That is all part of golf.

The extreme example of simply bring a 7 iron and a putter around a course would be a very clear example of a golfer not trying to shoot their best score in virtually all cases. Even in the case of a player bad with other clubs, the fact they have not brought any more than 2 clubs means they don't even have the option to use another club if the situation required it. I suppose it would become apparent if the same player also played rounds, especially competitions, with 14 clubs and shot good / great scores in comparison to their handicap


----------



## tobybarker (Nov 6, 2022)

woofers said:



			There is a report available on the England Golf WHS platform, “Competition vs General Play scores“ which shows for each player the number of Competition and General Play scores together with the average stroke differential for both categories. Makes interesting reading in some cases.
		
Click to expand...

most of our members who put in GP cards have lower SD on the GP rounds....including me. Less stress on a GP round leads to better scoring - who knew?!?


----------



## upsidedown (Nov 6, 2022)

tobybarker said:



			most of our members who put in GP cards have lower SD on the GP rounds....including me. Less stress on a GP round leads to better scoring - who knew?!?
		
Click to expand...

How's it became to us in NZ ,the fear of having a "card" in a competition wasn't there anymore, just another round of golf 😀


----------



## wjemather (Nov 6, 2022)

tobybarker said:



			most of our members who put in GP cards have lower SD on the GP rounds....including me. Less stress on a GP round leads to better scoring - who knew?!?
		
Click to expand...

That's over simplifying things somewhat. There are many other contributing factors. For example, there remains an NR = "chuck it in the bin" mentality during comps that doesn't exist for GP and, as at least one person has alluded to, courses are often setup longer and harder for competitions.


----------



## tobybarker (Nov 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			You cannot abuse the system without breaking the rules.

Playing with an unreasonable selection of clubs does not constitute trying to make the best score possible at each hole, so is not acceptable for handicapping. This is obvious. How hard you try with your one club is irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

Is a half-set unreasonable? Lots of people can only afford a grotty old driver - are they getting the best score they could possibly get? Where does that argument end? Maybe we should all be forced to get lessons to get the best score we can?


----------



## tobybarker (Nov 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			If they could do it with ease, they wouldn't be mid-high handicappers. For them, they need to have a great day to score that.

So now we're complaining about not winning with over-handicap scores? This is ridiculous.

The solution is to educate these golfers to the fact that, in a field of 100, they have a 1 in 100 chance of winning - they seem to think being a better player entitles them to a much greater chance than that, even when scoring well below their best. It's also much healthier to approach opens (especially handicap ones) as a good value opportunity to play elsewhere and just enjoy the day rather than go pot-hunting.
		
Click to expand...

I'm no statistician, but I'm not convinced that 1 in a 100 chance is right - of the 99 high index players (for example) the chances are high that one at least will have "one of those days" that high cappers are famous for.....the odds are stacked against the low capper, which is, I understand, what the 95% adjustment is supposed to be for (though I think that should be a smaller number personally)


----------



## SteveJay (Nov 6, 2022)

tobybarker said:



			I'm no statistician, but I'm not convinced that 1 in a 100 chance is right - of the 99 high index players (for example) the chances are high that one at least will have "one of those days" that high cappers are famous for.....the odds are stacked against the low capper, which is, I understand, what the 95% adjustment is supposed to be for (though I think that should be a smaller number personally)
		
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with that. 

Yes, the number of high handicappers mean that the likelihood of one having a great round is increased, but based on my playing experience over the years, an awful lot of high handicap golfers have no chance of winning. 

I won several seniors competitions over the last couple of years (since WHS) when I was scoring 35-40 points. I knew full well that if i scored around my handicap, then i would beat probably 75-80% of the field as the chances of them playing to their handicap, let alone below it, was minimal. I know it might be slightly different for all club comps, but I still think a lot of golfers never have a chance of winning.

WHS isn't a prefect leveller as we all know, so I would still think the odds are stacked in favour of mid handicappers and lower, as well as any high handicappers who are in the "improving" stage. Many high handicappers are unfortunately just going to remain that way and not improve for various reasons, including ability, physical limitations, mental attitude, lack of practice, lack of playing regularly etc. etc.


----------



## tobybarker (Nov 6, 2022)

SteveJay said:



			Not sure I agree with that.

Yes, the number of high handicappers mean that the likelihood of one having a great round is increased, but based on my playing experience over the years, an awful lot of high handicap golfers have no chance of winning.

I won several seniors competitions over the last couple of years (since WHS) when I was scoring 35-40 points. I knew full well that if i scored around my handicap, then i would beat probably 75-80% of the field as the chances of them playing to their handicap, let alone below it, was minimal. I know it might be slightly different for all club comps, but I still think a lot of golfers never have a chance of winning.

WHS isn't a prefect leveller as we all know, so I would still think the odds are stacked in favour of mid handicappers and lower, as well as any high handicappers who are in the "improving" stage. Many high handicappers are unfortunately just going to remain that way and not improve for various reasons, including ability, physical limitations, mental attitude, lack of practice, lack of playing regularly etc. etc.
		
Click to expand...

I woul


SteveJay said:



			Yes, the number of high handicappers mean that the likelihood of one having a great round is increased, but based on my playing experience over the years, an awful lot of high handicap golfers have no chance of winning.
		
Click to expand...

It only needs one, that's the point - and in a big enough field there will probably be one (or more)


----------



## OnTour (Nov 7, 2022)

I agree with you on the lat 3 holes, I'm after 3 or better gross after that the towel is thrown in or practice begins without putting my partners off 

what is the maximum increase in handicap you can have in a year ? is there one.  start say 3.3 can you be off 10 by next 20 cards. 




JonnyGutteridge said:



			I wonder where you draw the line on someone not playing to the best of their ability in a handicap counting round…

My mate is absolutely terrible at course management. If I gave him a pitching wedge and a putter, he would shoot better scores than he does with 14 clubs. Yet I just read on here that if someone chose to just take a 7 iron for every shot, they’d not falling foul of the rules somehow?
Is he not falling foul by using driver on a narrow par 4, making a quadruple bogey when he has a shot and could hit wedge wedge wedge and make a 4 or a 5…

What about towards the end of some of my competition rounds this year? I could be +6 with 3 holes left, but I only get 4 shots… I’m not interested in shooting a +6.. so I’ve made double bogeys when trying to make birdies and end up with a +9 - meaning some of these rounds count towards my best 8 and I end up with a higher handicap.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 7, 2022)

OnTour said:



			I agree with you on the lat 3 holes, I'm after 3 or better gross after that the towel is thrown in or practice begins without putting my partners off

what is the maximum increase in handicap you can have in a year ? is there one.  start say 3.3 can you be off 10 by next 20 cards.
		
Click to expand...

Your Index can only go up a maximum of 5.0 from its lowest value in the last year. Once it gets beyond 3.0 higher, any further increases are halved until it gets to 5.0 higher


----------



## Backsticks (Nov 7, 2022)

Which seems unknown to the uninformed in wider golf than discussions here. I think some of the heresay chat and mistrust of whs comes from a misunderstanding that someone can put in 20 cards and jump 10 shots.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 7, 2022)

Watching the lads have a rant on the WhatsApp group back end of last week made me chuckle. Suffice to say I don’t think they are lovers of WHS 😁


----------



## jim8flog (Nov 7, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			Watching the lads have a rant on the WhatsApp group back end of last week made me chuckle. Suffice to say I don’t think they are lovers of WHS 😁
		
Click to expand...

 I play with one guy who still moans about the changes the UHS introduced.


----------



## Tashyboy (Nov 7, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			I play with one guy who still moans about the changes the UHS introduced.
		
Click to expand...

I am of the ilk it’s here to stay. So we have to get used to it.


----------



## Captain_Black. (Nov 8, 2022)

Played the other day.
A guy in the other group who had insisted on putting in a GP card on the previous day in terrible conditions & was insisting on putting in another one on the day I played when the wind was gusting to 35mph & sporadic rain.

Turns out he shot 22 points & one of his group said ahh well he got his wish to bump up his H/C a bit.
I suspect quite a few will use the winter for this in an effort to gain a few shots prior to the new season kicking off in the Spring.

Nobody will convince me that WHS isn't easier to manipulate & those that of that inclination are taking full advantage.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 8, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Played the other day.
A guy in the other group who had insisted on putting in a GP card on the previous day in terrible conditions & was insisting on putting in another one on the day I played when the wind was gusting to 35mph & sporadic rain.

Turns out he shot 22 points & one of his group said ahh well he got his wish to bump up his H/C a bit.
I suspect quite a few will use the winter for this in an effort to gain a few shots prior to the new season kicking off in the Spring.

Nobody will convince me that WHS isn't easier to manipulate & those that of that inclination are taking full advantage.
		
Click to expand...

Yes he is .
But unfortunately he’s not breaking any rules.
The system is wide open if your that way inclined.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Nov 8, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Not much though. You could get a shot back before. Now you can get a couple, but its quite a few rounds to do that. And exceeding three takes a LOT of bad golf.
So gaining 1 or 2 shots more than before does NOT explain 50 points or Net 59s.
		
Click to expand...

You got 0.1 before, and eventually a shot. Now you can go up rapidly. I started season at 5.6, quickly got to 7.8, then down to 4.0, last 4 rounds of season saw me get 1.9 the other way and will start 2023 on 5.9.


----------



## JonnyGutteridge (Nov 8, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Played the other day.
A guy in the other group who had insisted on putting in a GP card on the previous day in terrible conditions & was insisting on putting in another one on the day I played when the wind was gusting to 35mph & sporadic rain.

Turns out he shot 22 points & one of his group said ahh well he got his wish to bump up his H/C a bit.
I suspect quite a few will use the winter for this in an effort to gain a few shots prior to the new season kicking off in the Spring.

Nobody will convince me that WHS isn't easier to manipulate & those that of that inclination are taking full advantage.
		
Click to expand...

You mean to say that PCC didn’t kick in and help out with the score differential on the day with terrible conditions?

I am shocked! 😉 It probably didn’t even change!

Completely agree. General Play cards need a lot of consideration - in my opinion should be a limit on how many general play cards can contribute to your “best 8”. I’d suggest a maximum of 2. So your handicap would be your best 8 out of your last 20, but excluding all but your best 2 general play scores within those 20 rounds.


----------



## BiMGuy (Nov 8, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			You mean to say that PCC didn’t kick in and help out with the score differential on the day with terrible conditions?

I am shocked! 😉 It probably didn’t even change!

Completely agree. General Play cards need a lot of consideration - in my opinion should be a limit on how many general play cards can contribute to your “best 8”. I’d suggest a maximum of 2. So your handicap would be your best 8 out of your last 20, but excluding all but your best 2 general play scores within those 20 rounds.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent idea. Apart from how it works for people who don’t get to play in many comps?


----------



## Ian_George (Nov 8, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			You mean to say that PCC didn’t kick in and help out with the score differential on the day with terrible conditions?

I am shocked! 😉 It probably didn’t even change!

Completely agree. General Play cards need a lot of consideration - in my opinion should be a limit on how many general play cards can contribute to your “best 8”. I’d suggest a maximum of 2. So your handicap would be your best 8 out of your last 20, but excluding all but your best 2 general play scores within those 20 rounds.
		
Click to expand...

H'mm! If manipulation by GP scores is really the goal, you'd likely have to submit over a dozen 'possibly dodgy' ones to have have any real effect! It would have been much easier to simply tank in competitions for an instant increase of 0.category each time!


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 8, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			You mean to say that PCC didn’t kick in and help out with the score differential on the day with terrible conditions?

I am shocked! 😉 It probably didn’t even change!

Completely agree. General Play cards need a lot of consideration - in my opinion should be a limit on how many general play cards can contribute to your “best 8”. I’d suggest a maximum of 2. So your handicap would be your best 8 out of your last 20, but excluding all but your best 2 general play scores within those 20 rounds.
		
Click to expand...

That would get messy. Imagine a player who submits loads of general play scores, but not many competitions (for whatever reason). The vast majority of their last 20, 30, 40, 50, etc scores could be general play scores, but you'd have older scores than that within their top 8 simply because that is how far back you'd need to go to have a competition round.

Also, what about the situation where you have a player who is doing well in general play rounds. Yet, their Index is significantly higher than it should be, because it ignores 5 or 6 good GP scores (as you've capped this at 2), for worse competition scores in the top 8.


----------



## jim8flog (Nov 8, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Played the other day.
A guy in the other group who had insisted on putting in a GP card on the previous day in terrible conditions & was insisting on putting in another one on the day I played when the wind was gusting to 35mph & sporadic rain.

Turns out he shot 22 points & one of his group said ahh well he got his wish to bump up his H/C a bit.
I suspect quite a few will use the winter for this in an effort to gain a few shots prior to the new season kicking off in the Spring.

Nobody will convince me that WHS isn't easier to manipulate & those that of that inclination are taking full advantage.
		
Click to expand...

Surely a players handicap should be based upon all conditions not just when the weather is at it's best.


----------



## rulefan (Nov 8, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			Surely a players handicap should be based upon all conditions not just when the weather is at it's best.
		
Click to expand...

That's how it is supposed to be done. It's not a summer only handicap,


----------



## Captain_Black. (Nov 8, 2022)

rulefan said:



			That's how it is supposed to be done. It's not a summer only handicap,
		
Click to expand...

Slogging around in the mud  / gale force wind & rain is hardly conducive to enjoyable qualifing golf though is it?
I mostly remember until very recently when the tee's got moved forward onto mat's the course was no longer an approved measured course so qualifiers could not be played.
Until very recently this was usually about the time the clocks go back at the end of Oct.


----------



## badgergm (Nov 8, 2022)

its Not supposed to make any difference is it? Not sure what you’re implying here. That handicaps shpild expect to go up in the Winter? That wouldnt be fair on those who dont play in Winter?


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 8, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Slogging around in the mud  / gale force wind & rain is hardly conducive to enjoyable qualifing golf though is it?
I mostly remember until very recently when the tee's got moved forward onto mat's the course was no longer an approved measured course so qualifiers could not be played.
Until very recently this was usually about the time the clocks go back at the end of Oct.
		
Click to expand...

It is still the case, if not on a measured course, that rounds not acceptable for handicap.

It rains in summer as well, and it can be windy. Should they not count? Wayward shots more likely to find trouble in summer, as ball flies and bounces further. Rough is higher in summer, and bushy trees more lush, harder to find.

I have known people to score well.in winter as well. Looking at the 2 to 3 competition scores coming in at my own club, they do not appear unusually worse compared to summer scores. Last 3 weekday roll ups been won with 37, 39 and 40 points in last week, which is similar to summer ones.


----------



## Backsticks (Nov 8, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			Completely agree. General Play cards need a lot of consideration - in my opinion should be a limit on how many general play cards can contribute to your “best 8”. I’d suggest a maximum of 2. So your handicap would be your best 8 out of your last 20, but excluding all but your best 2 general play scores within those 20 rounds.
		
Click to expand...

What difference do you see between general play cards and non general play cards ? And why the one sidedness, with no limit on the number of non general play cards ?


----------



## Captain_Black. (Nov 8, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			It is still the case, if not on a measured course, that rounds not acceptable for handicap.

It rains in summer as well, and it can be windy. Should they not count? Wayward shots more likely to find trouble in summer, as ball flies and bounces further. Rough is higher in summer, and bushy trees more lush, harder to find.

I have known people to score well.in winter as well. Looking at the 2 to 3 competition scores coming in at my own club, they do not appear unusually worse compared to summer scores. Last 3 weekday roll ups been won with 37, 39 and 40 points in last week, which is similar to summer ones.
		
Click to expand...

Depends entirely on the type of course you play & the area of the country to an extent.
We currently have placing on the fairways & dropping in the rough.
As for the rough being higher in the summer?
I don't find that is the case, as the rough & now the fairways are too wet to cut & the course too soft for the machinery.
To me, serious golf is played in the Spring / Summer & autumn.
Winter is just a quick knock to keep your eye in & not to be taken too seriously.
Really don't see what can be gained from playing qualifiers in the winter.


----------



## Wabinez (Nov 9, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Depends entirely on the type of course you play & the area of the country to an extent.
We currently have placing on the fairways & *dropping in the rough.*
As for the rough being higher in the summer?
I don't find that is the case, as the rough & now the fairways are too wet to cut & the course too soft for the machinery.
To me, serious golf is played in the Spring / Summer & autumn.
Winter is just a quick knock to keep your eye in & not to be taken too seriously.
Really don't see what can be gained from playing qualifiers in the winter.
		
Click to expand...

shouldn’t this make the course non-qualifying then, and not suitable for handicap cards. The club should be stopping cards being put in by actually administering stuff.

one of my clubs, last winter, had the course removed from MyEG as they could not guarantee qualifying conditions every day due to work on the course etc.
on days with competitions, they got the course set up so it was ‘legal’ and then to submit a card you had to be in the competition.


----------



## IanM (Nov 9, 2022)

Round and round we go...
 (Again)


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 9, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Depends entirely on the type of course you play & the area of the country to an extent.
We currently have placing on the fairways & dropping in the rough.
As for the rough being higher in the summer?
I don't find that is the case, as the rough & now the fairways are too wet to cut & the course too soft for the machinery.
To me, serious golf is played in the Spring / Summer & autumn.
Winter is just a quick knock to keep your eye in & not to be taken too seriously.
Really don't see what can be gained from playing qualifiers in the winter.
		
Click to expand...

Dropping in the rough makes it a non qualifier ?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Nov 9, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Depends entirely on the type of course you play & the area of the country to an extent.
We currently have placing on the fairways & dropping in the rough.
As for the rough being higher in the summer?
I don't find that is the case, *as the rough & now the fairways are too wet to cut *& the course too soft for the machinery.
To me, serious golf is played in the Spring / Summer & autumn.
Winter is just a quick knock to keep your eye in & not to be taken too seriously.
Really don't see what can be gained from playing qualifiers in the winter.
		
Click to expand...

Then that's the semi, not the rough, our rough is waist high in places during peak season. Now it's round your ankles


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Nov 9, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			What difference do you see between general play cards and non general play cards ? And why the one sidedness, with no limit on the number of non general play cards ?
		
Click to expand...

Generally people pay an entry fee for comps, and they are comps, people usually try to play well. With nothing at stake in GP cards, the unscrupulous have free reign to bang in as many as makes them happy


----------



## Golfnut1957 (Nov 9, 2022)

IanM said:



			Round and round we go...
(Again)

Click to expand...

Which thread?


----------



## IanM (Nov 9, 2022)

Golfnut1957 said:



			Which thread?
		
Click to expand...

This one! 

Some folk pointing out some negative implications of the WHS process in respect of general play cards, while others refuse to accept the notion.


----------



## wjemather (Nov 9, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			To me, serious golf is played in the Spring / Summer & autumn.
Winter is just a quick knock to keep your eye in & not to be taken too seriously.
		
Click to expand...

Recreational hobby golfers do not play serious golf at any time of year.

Note: just because you think it's serious (or take it seriously), doesn't make it serious golf. It isn't.


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 9, 2022)

IanM said:



			This one! 

Some folk pointing out some negative implications of the WHS process in respect of general play cards, while others refuse to accept the notion.
		
Click to expand...

I'm getting confused as to what the argument is though. Is it about General Play scores, or is it about winter golf!? 

I thought it was about winter golf, in which case general play has nothing to do with it. The same arguments would apply to any competitions a club chooses to run throughout the winter. 

If it is about general play, then we all know that golfers can, more easily, manipulate their handicap if they want, relative to pre-WHS. In which case, this could apply all year round. Hopefully this can be identified by Handicap Committees, but I think it would be next to impossible to 100% confirm a golfer is doing this dishonestly, unless that golfer isn't very clever about how they go about it. However, I don't think prohibiting or limiting GP scores on a handicap record is the answer, as it impacts the vast majority that play honestly. And, in a lot of cases, might actually ignore some really good general play scores and give a player a higher Index. Maybe they'll think of some clever ways to evaluate and deal with this in the future, who knows. More extensive automatic comparisons between GP and Competition scores, and maybe some other adjustments to the final index based on these (i.e. similar to additional adjustments when a soft or hard cap come into play). Although, even if something like this was to happen in the future, I'd expect it wouldn't even be a consideration for a very very long time. I think they will give WHS more time to settle, and be looking more at things that are different between national authorities, and seeing if the system could be refined to have less regional variations (e.g. The UK to adopt CR-Par, or the rest of the world to get rid of it)


----------



## LincolnShep (Nov 9, 2022)

The generalisation that "scores are better in the summer" doesn't hold water, it is entirely dependent on the type of course, the area of the country, and the type of player.  Some will be better with soft ground, some will be better with no wind.  Personally, I hate hard fairways and I have a low ball flight so don't worry too much about the wind.  I've looked at my scores from the last eight years and I score better in the winter.

Since 2014 my average score differential in the summer has been worse than the winter (22.9 v 23.7).  If I exclude Winter 20/21 (as I hardly played, and it skews the numbers) then the winter average drops to 22.7, exactly one shot better than my summer average.  BTW, for the purpose of this exercise, "Summer" is Apr-Sep and "Winter" is Oct-Mar.


----------



## BiMGuy (Nov 9, 2022)

LincolnShep said:



			The generalisation that "scores are better in the summer" doesn't hold water, it is entirely dependent on the type of course, the area of the country, and the type of player.  Some will be better with soft ground, some will be better with no wind.  Personally, I hate hard fairways and I have a low ball flight so don't worry too much about the wind.  I've looked at my scores from the last eight years and I score better in the winter.

Since 2014 my average score differential in the summer has been worse than the winter (22.9 v 23.7).  If I exclude Winter 20/21 (as I hardly played, and it skews the numbers) then the winter average drops to 22.7, exactly one shot worse than my summer average.  BTW, for the purpose of this exercise, "Summer" is Apr-Sep and "Winter" is Oct-Mar.

View attachment 45087

Click to expand...

At my old course I would score better in the winter. The course was much shorter off the winter tees. It was softer, and the greens were slower. We played off mats so had perfect lies. Even allowing for the cold and wind, scoring was much easier.

My current course is a different experience. There are no winter tees or greens so the course plays significantly longer in winter. The cold and wind makes a big difference due to the exposed nature of the course. Meaning it feels like it plays a few strokes harder. Although I don’t have enough data to back that up.


----------



## IanM (Nov 9, 2022)

Summer v Winter golf is massively location and course dependent.

Go and play Celtic Manor today, you will lose balls on the fairway.  Play Hankley Common, you probably won't need to clean your shoes afterwards!!    (if you see what I mean)   The latter is "proper golf, the former is not.  So qualifiers in the winter at Celtic Manor are daft,  are Hankley, it's "as you were!"

Most clubs (I am aware of) used to stop qualifiers over winter because of the vagaries of the playing conditions.  Someone in Authority now thinks absolutely everything should be qualifying.  Even bloomin' Matchplay. 

OK The more cards you put in the more accurate your handicap.  Logical and not untrue.  But people who play golf will give you lots of occasions where other things are in force. Trouble is, I wonder if it whizzes over the heads of people who prefer looking at a wee book, to hitting a ball!


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 9, 2022)

IanM said:



			Summer v Winter golf is massively location and course dependent.

Go and play Celtic Manor today, you will lose balls on the fairway.  Play Hankley Common, you probably won't need to clean your shoes afterwards!!    (if you see what I mean)   *The latter is "proper golf, the former is not.*  So qualifiers in the winter at Celtic Manor are daft,  are Hankley, it's "as you were!"

Most clubs (I am aware of) used to stop qualifiers over winter because of the vagaries of the playing conditions.  Someone in Authority now thinks absolutely everything should be qualifying.  Even bloomin' Matchplay.

OK The more cards you put in the more accurate your handicap.  Logical and not untrue.  But people who play golf will give you lots of occasions where other things are in force. Trouble is, I wonder if it whizzes over the heads of people who prefer looking at a wee book, to hitting a ball!
		
Click to expand...

Was just looking to see if any of the well known courses are on howdidido. Couldn't find Celtic Manor

St Andrews is playing loads of qualifiers, at all its different courses. Comps on all courses this weekend, with winning scores 40 points (Old Course), 30 Points (New Course, only 3 players), 38 points (Jubilee Course), 39 points (Eden Course) and 38 points (Strathtyrum Course). Similar decent scores week before, even one score of 46 points on Old Course

Carnoustie had a competition qualifier yesterday. Winner had 43 points (7 with 38 points or more, which is CR, in a field of 29). Last Tuesday, the winner was 1 under gross for 44 points, with another chap getting 38 points (and top 6 out of 19 getting 36 points or more)

So, it seems like good scores are still possible at this time of year at St Andrews and Carnoustie. Although, I'm not sure those course fit your definition of "proper golf"?


----------



## IanM (Nov 9, 2022)

How simple can it be?

St A and Carnoustie.  Links. Dry. Proper golf.  (My Hankley Common example)

Celtic Manor.  Bog. Not Proper golf.  Not fit to play a qualifier on in the winter. 

Also. Reread my first sentence


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 9, 2022)

IanM said:



			How simple can it be?

St A and Carnoustie.  Links. Dry. Proper golf.  (My Hankley Common example)

Celtic Manor.  Bog. Not Proper golf.  Not fit to play a qualifier on in the winter.

Also. Reread my first sentence
		
Click to expand...

My old course is a proper bog over the winter. I can't imagine worse, and the owner allows buggies (all about the money) which tear up the course even more. Players in competitions are still capable of excellent scoring over the winter, with scores often still in excess (and well in excess) of 40 points. There are pros and cons to playing in such conditions. It will also depend on the player playing, just like some players prefer a course that has more dog leg rights than lefts or vice versa (i.e. some course suit a drawer of the ball, others suit a fader).

Obviously, we are all discussing this from our own perceptions. There is no doubt that the ball goes significantly less distance in the winter, and so maybe this hurts shorter hitters more, whilst it saves longer hitters who are off line. The shorter rough in the winter might help golfers in winter (at my course, it is hard to tell where the fairway ends and rough begins in the winter, as grass is not growing), and some may like the preferred lies if they are able to tee it up a little on a tuft of higher grass. Whereas, it may hurt other golfers who hit the ball a little heavy, and get away with it in the fluffier summer grass.

It would be interesting to know what the handicap authorities have done in comparing summer and winter golf. Handicap rounds were encouraged over the winter long before WHS came about, so presumably they analysed many scores to show there is little difference, in general, between summer and winter scores? If there was a difference, then ideally the PCC would work well enough to effectively adjust the Course Rating upwards to account for the increase in the relative difficulty (although I still don't know if the authorities are even fully confident it does that, given the recent changes). Therefore, if there are courses like Celtic Manor that are truly more difficult over the winter, relative to the summer scores they get, then the PCC would increase to a value to account for the relatively worse scoring than would be expected in the summer. Whereas if there are courses that are actually easier, as they are in still pretty good condition, but with less rough, preferred lies, etc, then maybe PCC would even drop.


----------



## jim8flog (Nov 9, 2022)

Captain_Black. said:



			Depends entirely on the type of course you play & the area of the country to an extent.
We currently have placing on the fairways & dropping in the rough.
As for the rough being higher in the summer?
I don't find that is the case, as the rough & now the fairways are too wet to cut & the course too soft for the machinery.
To me, serious golf is played in the Spring / Summer & autumn.
Winter is just a quick knock to keep your eye in & not to be taken too seriously.
Really don't see what can be gained from playing qualifiers in the winter.
		
Click to expand...


As per your first sentence

  Where I play with have comps all year round, so if you can play in a comp for handicap purposes why not a GP round?  In one of our weekly swindles virtually everybody puts in a card for GP purposes all year round.

On a personal note most of my handicap cuts used to come during the winter months because I could fire at the flags with virtual certainty the ball would stop within a yard of where it landed.

Our rough is certainly worse in summer because they struggle to keep on top of it. One cut a week or two is good enough in winter but twice a week is not enough in a lot of summers.


----------



## jim8flog (Nov 9, 2022)

IanM said:



			Most clubs (I am aware of) used to stop qualifiers over winter because of the vagaries of the playing conditions.  Someone in Authority now thinks absolutely everything should be qualifying.  Even bloomin' Matchplay.
		
Click to expand...

This is what variable Standard Scratch and now PCC is all about,  so clubs could play qualifiers all year round.


----------



## IanM (Nov 9, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			This is what variable Standard Scratch and now PCC is all about,  so clubs could play qualifiers all year round.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed...."Could" play... but in the case of muddy bogs, my point was "should they?"


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 9, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			My old course is a proper bog over the winter. I can't imagine worse, and the owner allows buggies (all about the money) which tear up the course even more. Players in competitions are still capable of excellent scoring over the winter, with scores often still in excess (and well in excess) of 40 points. There are pros and cons to playing in such conditions. It will also depend on the player playing, just like some players prefer a course that has more dog leg rights than lefts or vice versa (i.e. some course suit a drawer of the ball, others suit a fader).

Obviously, we are all discussing this from our own perceptions. There is no doubt that the ball goes significantly less distance in the winter, and so maybe this hurts shorter hitters more, whilst it saves longer hitters who are off line. The shorter rough in the winter might help golfers in winter (at my course, it is hard to tell where the fairway ends and rough begins in the winter, as grass is not growing), and some may like the preferred lies if they are able to tee it up a little on a tuft of higher grass. Whereas, it may hurt other golfers who hit the ball a little heavy, and get away with it in the fluffier summer grass.

It would be interesting to know what the handicap authorities have done in comparing summer and winter golf. Handicap rounds were encouraged over the winter long before WHS came about, so presumably they analysed many scores to show there is little difference, in general, between summer and winter scores? If there was a difference, then ideally the PCC would work well enough to effectively adjust the Course Rating upwards to account for the increase in the relative difficulty (although I still don't know if the authorities are even fully confident it does that, given the recent changes). Therefore, if there are courses like Celtic Manor that are truly more difficult over the winter, relative to the summer scores they get, then the PCC would increase to a value to account for the relatively worse scoring than would be expected in the summer. Whereas if there are courses that are actually easier, as they are in still pretty good condition, but with less rough, preferred lies, etc, then maybe PCC would even drop.
		
Click to expand...

It’s not just the course condition though.
Do you play better golf in a polo shirt and shorts or in 4 layers inc a waterproof suit at 1 or 2 degrees.
Some courses shut down for winter all over the world ,some stay open 365 as the weather is great all year.
The weather in the North West is very changeable ,
Our course is playing very long atm but in summer it’s more about controlling your ball on the slopes.
Totally different playing conditions from winter to summer.
But if golfers want to put cards in that is their right as long as the course is ok.
But imho once PL come into force that’s not proper golf.


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 9, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			It’s not just the course condition though.
Do you play better golf in a polo shirt and shorts or in 4 layers inc a waterproof suit at 1 or 2 degrees.
Some courses shut down for winter all over the world ,some stay open 365 as the weather is great all year.
The weather in the North West is very changeable ,
Our course is playing very long atm but in summer it’s more about controlling your ball on the slopes.
Totally different playing conditions from winter to summer.
But if golfers want to put cards in that is their right as long as the course is ok.
But imho once PL come into force that’s not proper golf.
		
Click to expand...

I play golf better in short sleeves rather than long sleeves. I guess scores should be deemed unacceptable for handicap for anybody that wears a jumper. Or, if it ever rains, regardless of the time of year, not acceptable. Or, if it is unusually windy, unacceptable It would certainly help solve the winter problem some think exist. Only to some extend though, as I was in short sleeves last weekend I must admit, wasn't too windy and it only rained a little bit for a while, so my score would still probably count 

What about scores in the middle of the summer, when it is 30+ degrees C and the fairways are very dry. Would these be OK for handicap? You could argue that these sort of extreme dry / hot conditions are much rarer than cold and wet conditions. So, maybe golf in hot and dry weather is not "proper golf", but golf in bad conditions is much more "normal"?


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 9, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I play golf better in short sleeves rather than long sleeves. I guess scores should be deemed unacceptable for handicap for anybody that wears a jumper. Or, if it ever rains, regardless of the time of year, not acceptable. Or, if it is unusually windy, unacceptable It would certainly help solve the winter problem some think exist. Only to some extend though, as I was in short sleeves last weekend I must admit, wasn't too windy and it only rained a little bit for a while, so my score would still probably count 

What about scores in the middle of the summer, when it is 30+ degrees C and the fairways are very dry. Would these be OK for handicap? You could argue that these sort of extreme dry / hot conditions are much rarer than cold and wet conditions. So, maybe golf in hot and dry weather is not "proper golf", but golf in bad conditions is much more "normal"?
		
Click to expand...

I would say weather conditions don’t really make any difference to most players.
But would prefer t shirt and shorts.
But if you are allowed to pick your ball up clean it and preffer your lie that’s not proper golf.
This normally happens in winter.


----------



## Golfnut1957 (Nov 9, 2022)

IanM said:



			This one! 

Some folk pointing out some negative implications of the WHS process in respect of general play cards, while others refuse to accept the notion.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry mine was a (too) subtle comment that it could have been referring to a number of threads. Did anyone mention LIV?


----------



## IanM (Nov 9, 2022)

Golfnut1957 said:



			Yes, sorry mine was a (too) subtle comment that it could have been referring to a number of threads. Did anyone mention LIV?
		
Click to expand...


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 9, 2022)

Lads were talking today.
There is a change coming that lets a player put a card in with no markers signature.
But it will incur a two shot penalty.

If that’s true it’s getting worse.
Player puts a dodgy card in and they make it worse by two shots.

MLR L-1 comittiee can stop DQ and give a two shot penalty, if no marker or player signiture.


----------



## Wabinez (Nov 9, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Lads were talking today.
There is a change coming that lets a player put a card in with no markers signature.
But it will incur a two shot penalty.

If that’s true it’s getting worse.
Player puts a dodgy card in and they make it worse by two shots.

MLR L-1 comittiee can stop DQ and give a two shot penalty, if no marker or player signiture.
		
Click to expand...

So it’s a model local rule - which means clubs can choose not to implement it if they see fit….and will apply to competitions, not general play cards from the wording of the ’press release’ which says the rule will be available to tournament committees to put in play for their events.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 9, 2022)

Wabinez said:



			So it’s a model local rule - which means clubs can choose not to implement it if they see fit….and will apply to competitions, not general play cards from the wording of the ’press release’ which says the rule will be available to tournament committees to put in play for their events.
		
Click to expand...

Why would they need that option.?
It’s a fundamental of golf that you and your marker sign the card.
The digital age is changing the game ,not always for the good imo.


----------



## Wabinez (Nov 10, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Why would they need that option.?
It’s a fundamental of golf that you and your marker sign the card.
The digital age is changing the game ,not always for the good imo.
		
Click to expand...

because people can…forget?

its obviously been brought up with the R&A and USGA for them to make it a local rule, and test it for 4 years before seeing if they just include it in the rules.

clubs and tournaments might not implement the rule, and if you sign your cards there is nothing to worry about. 

dont see any issues with the experiment myself


----------



## jim8flog (Nov 10, 2022)

clubchamp98 said:



			Lads were talking today.
There is a change coming that lets a player put a card in with no markers signature.
But it will incur a two shot penalty.

If that’s true it’s getting worse.
Player puts a dodgy card in and they make it worse by two shots.

MLR L-1 comittiee can stop DQ and give a two shot penalty, if no marker or player signiture.
		
Click to expand...

It is normally possible to verify a players score by cross checking with the markers card. Who the marker was can be verified by tee times.

The committee can now make a decision on the circumstances as to lack signature as to what penalty to apply.  The committee have always been able to overturn a DQ penalty if they feel it is too severe a penalty no time at the moment to look at where to find it in the current rules.


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 12, 2022)

WHS is now bonkers complicated, too complicated. The previous system and WHS are easy to manipulate. So there's the problem. I think the old system was better, but take out the buffer zone rubbish, why complicate? How to stop the fiddlers? I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If anyone puts a net score in that's below par, then their H/C should be reduced down to what they have just scored, assuming it is lower than their current H/C. Any increase in handicap is only point one per game played that does not have a net score lower than par for the course played.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 12, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			It is normally possible to verify a players score by cross checking with the markers card. Who the marker was can be verified by tee times.

The committee can now make a decision on the circumstances as to lack signature as to what penalty to apply.  The committee have always been able to overturn a DQ penalty if they feel it is too severe a penalty no time at the moment to look at where to find it in the current rules.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is possible.
But it’s the first thing your taught as a golfer.
You don’t really have a lot to do to sign your card.

But creating more work for Handicap sec.


----------



## Backsticks (Nov 12, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			It is normally possible to verify a players score by cross checking with the markers card.
		
Click to expand...

What do you mean here ?


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 12, 2022)

Crazyface said:



			WHS is now bonkers complicated, too complicated. The previous system and WHS are easy to manipulate. So there's the problem. I think the old system was better, but take out the buffer zone rubbish, why complicate? How to stop the fiddlers? I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If anyone puts a net score in that's below par, then their H/C should be reduced down to what they have just scored, assuming it is lower than their current H/C. Any increase in handicap is only point one per game played that does not have a net score lower than par for the course played.
		
Click to expand...

I think that is a terrible idea. As soon as a player scores a round of their life (and we all have them), then it may take them 40 or 50 rounds to get a handicap that enables them to play to handicap again. That could take years.

I shot a 72 gross 3 years ago, but haven't got close since. I'd probably still be getting 0.1's back to this day, to account for that one round everything went right.


----------



## jim8flog (Nov 12, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			What do you mean here ?
		
Click to expand...

 In a comp with a booked start sheet the person checking the scores will be able to see which players went out together and virtually all players record their own score in the markers column.
So it is a simple case of comparing scores in the markers column on one card with another card to see who was the marker and cross checking the gross score between the two cards.


----------



## Backsticks (Nov 12, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			In a comp with a booked start sheet the person checking the scores will be able to see which players went out together and virtually all players record their own score in the markers column.
So it is a simple case of comparing scores in the markers column on one card with another card to see who was the marker and cross checking the gross score between the two cards.
		
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 12, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.
		
Click to expand...

I do it as many markers have got my score wrong in the past.
I cross check the gross scores before I sign it.
But I would not expect an overworked h/cap sec to do it if I can’t even sign my own card.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 12, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.
		
Click to expand...

If I'm marking your card and I only mark your score and not mine...how do I check my scores on my card are correct before signing it.....?
If I haven't put them in the Marker's box then I've got nothing to check, against.....


----------



## clubchamp98 (Nov 12, 2022)

Imurg said:



			If I'm marking your card and I only mark your score and not mine...how do I check my scores on my card are correct before signing it.....?
If I haven't put them in the Marker's box then I've got nothing to check, against.....
		
Click to expand...

Exactly.
That’s why there is a “ markers score column”


----------



## Backsticks (Nov 12, 2022)

Imurg said:



			If I'm marking your card and I only mark your score and not mine...how do I check my scores on my card are correct before signing it.....?
If I haven't put them in the Marker's box then I've got nothing to check, against.....
		
Click to expand...

 Against your memory? You know what scores you had, and probably the gross and/or stableford total. Its enough to spot an error on your markers card before you sign.


----------



## Imurg (Nov 12, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Against your memory? You know what scores you had, and probably the gross and/or stableford total. Its enough to spot an error on your markers card before you sign.
		
Click to expand...

And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?
No problem for me but an awful lot of people can't remember what ball they're using....
You can't rely on memory.


----------



## BiMGuy (Nov 12, 2022)

Imurg said:



			And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?
No problem for me but an awful lot of people can't remember what ball they're using....
You can't rely on memory.
		
Click to expand...

Some people struggle to remember how many shots they’ve hit on the hole they’ve just played.


----------



## Wabinez (Nov 13, 2022)




----------



## Backsticks (Nov 13, 2022)

Wabinez said:



View attachment 45125

Click to expand...

Presumably, whe WHS committee looked at a sea of such data. If the above were correct, it looks like 0.85 would be the singles competition factor. Is it known if they chose 0.95 because the quoted data is wrong and WHS has the correct data, or, because WHS decided that they must discriminate against low handicappers, and skew the system so that 30+ hc are given a two shot advantage. 

(and lets not confuse it with the 50-points-to-have-a-chance problem. Thats clearly a different issue, and specific to some problem clubs)?


----------



## Crazyface (Nov 13, 2022)

So higher H/C's are more likely to have great rounds?


----------



## Ian_George (Nov 13, 2022)

Crazyface said:



			So higher H/C's are more likely to have great rounds?
		
Click to expand...

Depends how you define 'great round'!
If 'great' = '8 shots or more under handicap', then Yes.
If great = 'Level Par or better', then No!
That chart demonstrates the reason why handicap competitions should have Divisions!


----------



## AussieKB (Nov 13, 2022)

Imurg said:



			And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?
No problem for me but an awful lot of people can't remember what ball they're using....
You can't rely on memory.
		
Click to expand...

When I count over 80 then it doesn't matter.


----------



## wjemather (Nov 13, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			Presumably, whe WHS committee looked at a sea of such data. If the above were correct, it looks like 0.85 would be the singles competition factor. Is it known if they chose 0.95 because the quoted data is wrong and WHS has the correct data, or, because WHS decided that they must discriminate against low handicappers, and skew the system so that 30+ hc are given a two shot advantage.

(and lets not confuse it with the 50-points-to-have-a-chance problem. Thats clearly a different issue, and specific to some problem clubs)?
		
Click to expand...

I believe the quoted probabilities from Dean Knuth apply to the old USGA system, not WHS, so are likely to be slightly off. Further, over handicap rounds must also be considered when evaluating equity, so these figures cannot be used in isolation.

Additionally, the .95 allowance for individual stroke play is deemed equitable for medium sized fields but inequitable in larger fields when a lower allowance is suggested. It is therefore CONGU's mandate that skews the system against lower handicappers in larger fields.


----------



## D-S (Nov 13, 2022)

wjemather said:



			I believe the quoted probabilities from Dean Knuth apply to the old USGA system, not WHS, so are likely to be slightly off. Further, over handicap rounds must also be considered when evaluating equity, so these figures cannot be used in isolation.

Additionally, the .95 allowance for individual stroke play is deemed equitable for medium sized fields but inequitable in larger fields when a lower allowance is suggested. It is therefore CONGU's mandate that skews the system against lower handicappers in larger fields.
		
Click to expand...

Can you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?


----------



## wjemather (Nov 13, 2022)

D-S said:



			Can you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?
		
Click to expand...

According to WHS, 30 is medium size. There is no specific suggested allowance, just advice that committees may want to reduce the allowances as field size increases.


----------



## Ian_George (Nov 13, 2022)

D-S said:



			Can you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?
		
Click to expand...

I believe 30 is the boundary point https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-game/handicap-allowances-under-whs 
FWIW, I seriously doubt applying 95% (1 shot for 11-30; 2 shots 31-50; 3 shots for higher) is actually going to have a noticeable effect on the ratio of 'great day' winners - I believe there'll still be loads of winners in the 31-50 range who have an 'outstanding score' simply because of improvement from practice after initial handicap allocation! Another (or the same) reason for running handicap comps in Divisions!


----------



## Swango1980 (Nov 13, 2022)

wjemather said:



			According to WHS, 30 is medium size. There is no specific suggested allowance, just advice that committees may want to reduce the allowances as field size increases.
		
Click to expand...

I never remember reading that in the manual. Just the 30 limit, but nothing above it (maybe it is there, and I missed it)

However, that is marvelous. We can have fields over 100. I wonder if that is a large field. And, system just leaves it up to the comp sec to decide or not decide, with no real logic. I imagine none do this, as they are oblivious to it, or the software does not make it easy? But, are players who play in large fields now likely to be at a disadvantage if they are a lower handicap? Surely not, as they've been slammed every time they have tried to highlight this


----------



## D-S (Nov 13, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I never remember reading that in the manual. Just the 30 limit, but nothing above it (maybe it is there, and I missed it)

However, that is marvelous. We can have fields over 100. I wonder if that is a large field. And, system just leaves it up to the comp sec to decide or not decide, with no real logic. I imagine none do this, as they are oblivious to it, or the software does not make it easy? But, are players who play in large fields now likely to be at a disadvantage if they are a lower handicap? Surely not, as they've been slammed every time they have tried to highlight this
		
Click to expand...

Lower handicappers certainly seem to be at a distinct disadvantage if the numbers quoted above are anywhere near the today reality - if they are not, it would be interesting to know what they are under the current system.


----------



## D-S (Nov 13, 2022)

If the numbers above are true then 42 points as a winning score is at least 10 times more likely for a 30+ handicapper than for an old fashioned Cat 1 player. However as people are always quoting simply performance against par rather than against Course Rating (a true measure of difficulty) and, of course we all know that par is not a measure of difficulty, so we don’t know how ‘good’ these outlandish scores really are. If only there was a way for these scores to account for course difficulty so we would really be able to compare.


----------



## wjemather (Nov 13, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I never remember reading that in the manual. Just the 30 limit, but nothing above it (maybe it is there, and I missed it)

However, that is marvelous. We can have fields over 100. I wonder if that is a large field. And, system just leaves it up to the comp sec to decide or not decide, with no real logic. I imagine none do this, as they are oblivious to it, or the software does not make it easy? But, are players who play in large fields now likely to be at a disadvantage if they are a lower handicap? Surely not, as they've been slammed every time they have tried to highlight this
		
Click to expand...

CONGU makes allowances mandatory, so it's irrelevant. Divisions are recommended.


----------

