# WHS Introduction Flyer



## mikejohnchapman (Dec 23, 2019)

We renew our subscriptions in March and I wanted to include a 1 page flyer with the letters to give an overview of the WHS as the start of the education process.

Before generating something I wondered if anyone else had produced a simple members overview I could steal with pride!


----------



## rulefan (Dec 23, 2019)

This (copied from National Club Golfer) is a reasonable taster

*World Handicap System key features*

WHS will use the USGA course and slope rating system – your handicap will change depending on the difficulty of the course and the competition conditions
A minimum of 54 holes will be required to gain a handicap but that can come from any combination of 9 or 18-hole scores
Handicaps will be calculated using the best eight of the last 20 scores. The 0.1 increase will disappear
Both competitive and recreational rounds  Supplementary Scores will be able to count for handicap
CSS will be replaced by a new system known as the abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment


----------



## rulefan (Dec 23, 2019)

The following, which is heavily edited from the initial presentation to club handicap administrators, may be helpful.

*Course Rating *represents the score a scratch player should achieve under normal course and weather conditions. 
Course Rating assess 2 types of challenge, the effective playing length of the course and the obstacles that a player will encounter. (The same as current SSS)
Whilst calculated to one decimal place, a Course Rating of 71.8 would equate to a scratch golfer’s expected score of 72
The same principle is applied for the bogey golfer however their expected score would be about 95 (say).

A *Scratch Golfer* will have a 0.0 Handicap Index

A *Bogey Golfer* will have a Handicap Index of between 20 & 24.

To recap – the Course Rating is the score that a scratch golfer is expected to score; the Bogey Rating is the score a bogey player is expected to score.

**************************************************************************************************************************

This is where Slope Rating comes in.

**************************************************************************************************************************
*Slope Rating* represents the difference between the two – i.e. the *relative* difficulty (playing from a specific set of tees on a golf course) for the Bogey player compared to the Scratch player. And *NOT* comparing Course A with Course B, as some golfers think.

The Slope Rating is, therefore, a key component in the calculation of the number of strokes each player receives to play a particular golf course.

The difference between the Scratch and Bogey Ratings multiplied by a constant factor calculates the Slope Rating. 
Factors:  Men – 5.381     Women – 4.24
Slope rating can range from 55 as the lowest to 155 as the highest with the *standard* (not average) difficulty being 113. 

A player's *Course Handicap* is calculated using the following formula:
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating / 113)


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 23, 2019)

We supplied a link and gave the following as well https://www.englandgolf.org/handicaps-rules/whs-2020/


----------



## 3offTheTee (Dec 23, 2019)

If I have The terminology incorrect apologies:

if I am playing in a Stroke play Competition do I receive 95 % of my Course Handicap? If so why is this please?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 23, 2019)

3offTheTee said:



			If I have The terminology incorrect apologies:

if I am playing in a Stroke play Competition do I receive 95 % of my Course Handicap? If so why is this please?
		
Click to expand...

The one question that raised some anger and discussion at the SW WHS Workshop. Nobody will give a sensible answer after CONGU has spent that last 5 years justifying the use of full, 9/10 etc


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Dec 23, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			The one question that raised some anger and discussion at the SW WHS Workshop. Nobody will give a sensible answer after CONGU has spent that last 5 years justifying the use of full, 9/10 etc
		
Click to expand...

I think it's a nod to single figure handicapers as with the new playing handicaps will increase the differential even further. In effect if you are off single figures you will get your full handicap but others will not.

They quote fairness and equity a lot!

Personally think it adds a level of complexity which isn't welcome.


----------



## duncan mackie (Dec 24, 2019)

Old Skier said:



			The one question that raised some anger and discussion at the SW WHS Workshop. Nobody will give a sensible answer after CONGU has spent that last 5 years justifying the use of full, 9/10 etc
		
Click to expand...

It will run and run I am afraid.
Classic case of what you didn't see you didn't query; and both the last iteration of the CONGU algorithm and the USGA calls had what was either specifically called a reward for excellence (USGA) or a general acceptance that the lower the handicap the stronger is was (CONGU steady state - improvers, or those fading like myself, aren't steady state).
Both these elements have been taken out of the calculation  to arrive at handicap index (which is why you will probably see a disproportionate increase in higher handicaps when transitioned next year) and that will then be adjusted back again in some allowances....put another way it's all going to be pretty much the same for stroke play comp but arrived at in different ways!

Then again conspiracy theories rule 🤔


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

Duncan has it right. The other major handicap systems had a 'bonus for excellence' adjustment built in to the handicap calculation. 96% in North America and 93% in Australia. 
To quote the USGA 
_Bonus for Excellence is the incentive for players to improve their golf games that is built into the USGA Handicap System. It is the term used to describe the small percentage below perfect equity that is used to calculate a Handicap Index (96 percent). As a Handicap Index improves (gets lower), the player has a slightly better chance of placing high or winning a handicap event._
This has now been moved to the allowance for individual stroke play, so that it will not worsen the current imbalance in matchplay where the allowance is still 100%


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

duncan mackie said:



			the last iteration of the CONGU algorithm ... had ... a general acceptance that the lower the handicap the stronger is was (CONGU steady state - improvers, or those fading like myself, aren't steady state).
		
Click to expand...

Duncan
I have looked for this before. How/where is it described/expressed in the CONGU manual ?


----------



## duncan mackie (Dec 24, 2019)

rulefan said:



			Duncan
I have looked for this before. How/where is it described/expressed in the CONGU manual ?
		
Click to expand...

It isnt (for CONGU)  it's a function of the way a handicap is calculated.

In it's simplest terms if cat 4 were calculated at 0.1 to 0.1 they would be stronger (higher).
Whilst this variation is a function of the  normal distribution curve for each cat, and the generation of a steady state handicap ie without it an 18 handicap, scoring anticipated 18 handicap scores, would gradually increase in handicap; it's product is to deliver stronger lower handicaps.
This only real statement of acceptance to this is in the stated matchplay bias (to lower handicaps) which applies even below the levels where NDB handicapping might factor. From memory around 5% has been referenced from time to time.

My point is that 
1.previously there were inherent elements that went into the calculation of a handicap - these have been removed and replaced by a single routine that applies across all handicap levels (You could duplicate it by varying the sample set being averaged at different levels (categories))
2. this can be seen in the anticipated transition impact - that higher handicaps are likely to see an increase when their initial WHS handicap index is calculated.

If it was believed that the previous handicaps were correct for singles stroke play competition then an allowance adjustment becomes necessary to maintain that (inherent) status quo.


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

Thanks Duncan
I hadn't really thought through the 'bfe' effect of the CONGU/EGA ratchet.

I seem to remember it was suggested that the individual matchplay allowance should be 120% to produce parity.


----------



## Crow (Dec 24, 2019)

rulefan said:



			Duncan has it right. The other major handicap systems had a 'bonus for excellence' adjustment built in to the handicap calculation. 96% in North America and 93% in Australia.
To quote the USGA
_Bonus for Excellence is the incentive for players to improve their golf games that is built into the USGA Handicap System. It is the term used to describe the small percentage below perfect equity that is used to calculate a Handicap Index (96 percent). As a Handicap Index improves (gets lower), the player has a slightly better chance of placing high or winning a handicap event._
This has now been moved to the allowance for individual stroke play, so that it will not worsen the current imbalance in matchplay where the allowance is still 100%
		
Click to expand...

I don't get this.
If they have a better chance of a handicap cut then this will soon level out over the course of a year and they'll find their natural "bonus for excellence" handicap and any built-in advantage will be gone.


----------



## IanM (Dec 24, 2019)

The summaries at the top are really helpful.  Thanks.....  I would still precis further, but thats how to get the message over.

Bullet points. No waffle. It's pretty easy after that!

....there are couple of terms used that are not explained (unless I missed it)  

*Handicap index* - is that the average of the "8 from 20?"

I guess, In practice, the *course index* is sorted out when you key your gross numbers into the computer?    In And if you are playing matchplay, keep a calculator in your golf bag?  

The very existence "constant factor" in the calculation demonstrates the wrong sort of people developed this!


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

Crow said:



			I don't get this.
If they have a better chance of a handicap cut then this will soon level out over the course of a year and they'll find their natural "bonus for excellence" handicap and any built-in advantage will be gone.
		
Click to expand...

Under the old USGA/GA system the bfe was inherent in the player's handicap index, so applied also to matchplay. But with matchplay it has been shown that without the bfe the majority of matches are won by the lower handicap player anyway. So bfe gives an unnecessary bonus to lower handicappers.


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

IanM said:



			The summaries at the top are really helpful.  Thanks.....  I would still precis further, but thats how to get the message over.

Bullet points. No waffle. It's pretty easy after that!

....there are couple of terms used that are not explained (unless I missed it)

*Handicap index* - is that the average of the "8 from 20?"

I guess, In practice, the *course index* is sorted out when you key your gross numbers into the computer?    In And if you are playing matchplay, keep a calculator in your golf bag?  

The very existence "constant factor" in the calculation demonstrates the wrong sort of people developed this!   

Click to expand...

I'm not sure the definition of *Handicap Index* is very helpful.
_The measure of a player’s demonstrated ability calculated against the Slope Rating of a golf course of standard playing difficulty (that is, a course with a Slope Rating of 113) (see Rule 5.2). _
But although you are correct in saying it is _the Average of the lowest 8 of the most recent 20 score differentials rounded to 1 decimal place, _that is an over simplification and it would be confusing to include a full explanation in a simple introduction.

I don't know what you mean by *course index* as the term does not appear anywhere.
But assuming you meant Course Handicap, perhaps I should have written

A player's *Course Handicap* may be calculated using the following formula:
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating / 113)
But there will be no need to do the calculation as the information will be available from a chart in or near the 1st tee, the pro shop and/or the club website.


----------



## IanM (Dec 24, 2019)

Many thanks... I think I did mean Course Handicap....  Handicap Index explanation looks like another example of over engineering.  It's either an average of best 8 from last 20, or it isn't.....it's maths.  Or maybe the Rules-dudes are trying to mix the "rationale for it," with the "method of calculation" in the notes?   

But need to clarify, the 8 scores used are the difference from the "abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment" number  (in old money what would have been the CSS of the day??) 

Blimey... I think I am starting to get this now.   I guess our club handicapping software will give me the 8 from 20, the charts give me the "Course Handicap, " and if playing match-play, the other person  will sort out their course handicap, then you do the difference as you do now.   You'll soon know what you home course handicap is and most folk will just get used to it!


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Dec 24, 2019)

OK getting off the original point here!  Interesting none the less.

I was thinking about something like this, any comments other than I need to fix some formatting.


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

Looks pretty good. 
One correction "_abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment_" should be "_playing conditions calculation (PCC)_"


----------



## Imurg (Dec 24, 2019)

rulefan said:



			Looks pretty good.
One correction "_abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment_" should be "_playing conditions calculation (PCC)_"
		
Click to expand...

Is this PCC going to work in a similar manner to the current CSS. I notice it can move from -1 to +3...just like CSS


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

IanM said:



			Many thanks... I think I did mean Course Handicap....  Handicap Index explanation looks like another example of over engineering.  It's either an average of best 8 from last 20, or it isn't.....it's maths.  Or maybe the Rules-dudes are trying to mix the "rationale for it," with the "method of calculation" in the notes?  

But need to clarify, the 8 scores used are the difference from the "abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment" number  (in old money what would have been the CSS of the day??)

Blimey... I think I am starting to get this now.   I guess our club handicapping software will give me the 8 from 20, the charts give me the "Course Handicap, " and if playing match-play, the other person  will sort out their course handicap, then you do the difference as you do now.   You'll soon know what you home course handicap is and most folk will just get used to it!
		
Click to expand...

1) It is and it isn't. If a player is getting an initial handicap or at transition from CONGU to WHS, they may not have 20 scores in the bank.

2) The Score Differential includes the PCC adjustment.

3) a) The club software will only handle competition management (ie comp set up, player entry and score entry and comp results).
b) At comp entry, the club system will confirm and display the course/tees you are playing, your handicap index, your course handicap for the relevant tees and your playing handicap (95%). If your club has the right hardware, it may print a label to affix to your card.
b) The raw score data will be sent to the WHS software which will process all handicap adjustments. This will include the 8/20 work. Any resultant adjustments will be returned overnight to the club's system


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Dec 24, 2019)

Imurg said:



			Is this PCC going to work in a similar manner to the current CSS. I notice it can move from -1 to +3...just like CSS
		
Click to expand...

Main difference is it considers all acceptable rounds played during the day not just the specific competition.


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

Imurg said:



			Is this PCC going to work in a similar manner to the current CSS. I notice it can move from -1 to +3...just like CSS
		
Click to expand...

I haven't got access to the algorithm but I understand that it is closely aligned to the existing Australian algorithm. It is not like the CONGU tables but is rather more sophisticated.
The scores of all players are examined and compared with their 'expected' score. There is then some fancy juggling and out comes the PCC


----------



## rulefan (Dec 24, 2019)

mikejohnchapman said:



			Main difference is it considers all acceptable rounds played during the day not just the specific competition.
		
Click to expand...

A minor correction - it takes scores entered during the day related to play on that day. So a 'supplementary' entered the next day will not be considered in the PCC. But competition scores entered on the day will be considered even if the comp has not been closed.


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Dec 25, 2019)

OK thanks for the input here is the updated version


----------



## rulefan (Dec 25, 2019)

Bullet 2 - _and the competition conditions_

What do you mean by this term?


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Dec 26, 2019)

erm....  it was a cut and paste from the points you posted 

Think it might refer to the adjustment made for non-matchplay (95%) - at least that was what I intended


----------



## SammmeBee (Dec 26, 2019)

Is this just to confuse all your Members who are playing under the current handicap system pretty much all/most of this season?


----------



## rulefan (Dec 26, 2019)

rulefan said:



			Bullet 2 - _and the competition conditions_

What do you mean by this term?
		
Click to expand...

Sorry. My sloppy wording. The correct term is Handicap Allowances but I suggest you take it out. It's an unnecessary complication at this stage.


----------



## rulefan (Dec 26, 2019)

SammmeBee said:



			Is this just to confuse all your Members who are playing under the current handicap system pretty much all/most of this season?
		
Click to expand...

I must admit it may be a little early to be targeting member yet.
It will generate a lot more questions which I suspect many club and handicap administrators will not be able to answer yet. The latter are only getting a briefing now in order to prepare themselves.


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Dec 26, 2019)

SammmeBee said:



			Is this just to confuse all your Members who are playing under the current handicap system pretty much all/most of this season?
		
Click to expand...

Not the intention as it is intended to be distributed with the membership renewals in March.

Guess it depends if you believe in mushroom management  - personally I believe that providing correct information is better than letting the rumours / misinformation becoming the truth. There will be a lot written in the next couple of months and anything that encourages members to submit more cards this season will be good.


----------



## rulefan (Dec 26, 2019)

mikejohnchapman said:



			Not the intention as it is intended to be distributed with the membership renewals in March.
.
		
Click to expand...

That sounds about right.


----------



## upsidedown (Jan 17, 2020)

Played at Silves in Portugal today and before going looked up the slope rating and saw it was 118, so used the published tables on line to work with my handicap index I'd get 5 shots. However once we arrived and looked at the published tables by the reception desk my handicap index would only give me 3 shots.How does that work ?
I thought all courses with say 118 as theri SR were then the same but maybe not ?
For information Silves CR is 67,7


----------



## duncan mackie (Jan 17, 2020)

upsidedown said:



			Played at Silves in Portugal today and before going looked up the slope rating and saw it was 118, so used the published tables on line to work with my handicap index I'd get 5 shots. However once we arrived and looked at the published tables by the reception desk my handicap index would only give me 3 shots.How does that work ?
I thought all courses with say 118 as theri SR were then the same but maybe not ?
For information Silves CR is 67,7
		
Click to expand...

O


upsidedown said:



			Played at Silves in Portugal today and before going looked up the slope rating and saw it was 118, so used the published tables on line to work with my handicap index I'd get 5 shots. However once we arrived and looked at the published tables by the reception desk my handicap index would only give me 3 shots.How does that work ?
I thought all courses with say 118 as theri SR were then the same but maybe not ?
For information Silves CR is 67,7
		
Click to expand...

have they factored in the new handicap allowances under WHS? Where you playing a match or stroke play etc?


----------



## upsidedown (Jan 17, 2020)

Ww



duncan mackie said:



			O

have they factored in the new handicap allowances under WHS? Where you playing a match or stroke play etc?
		
Click to expand...

We were playing stroke play but no obvious sign on the tables they had been applied


----------



## upsidedown (Jan 17, 2020)

https://i.postimg.cc/LsGWBDbm/IMG-20200117-162544276.jpg


----------



## rulefan (Jan 17, 2020)

But how did you get a WHS handicap* index *if you play in Shropshire?

What published tables did you use?

Did you take the (CR-Par) factor in. Used in Europe but won'r be used by CONGU


----------



## upsidedown (Jan 17, 2020)

rulefan said:



			But how did you get a WHS handicap* index *if you play in Shropshire?

What published tables did you use?

Did you take the (CR-Par) factor in. Used in Europe but won'r be used by CONGU
		
Click to expand...

See link above for published and in the essence of embracing the new system have been using our exact handicaps from home as our index 😉👍


----------



## rulefan (Jan 17, 2020)

upsidedown said:



			See link above for published and in the essence of embracing the new system have been using our exact handicaps from home as our index 😉👍
		
Click to expand...

The only information I can see is the image of the card in post #36 which gives 5 from 6.6-7.4 and 3 from 4.6-5.5
What exact handicap did you use?
Course Handicap = Handicap Index * (Slope / 113) + (Course Rating - Par)
The last bracket will not be used by CONGU but I believe it will in Europe.

Incidentally, has Portugal actually implemented WHS yet?


----------



## upsidedown (Jan 17, 2020)

rulefan said:



			The only information I can see is the image of the card in post #36 which gives 5 from 6.6-7.4 and 3 from 4.6-5.5
What exact handicap did you use?
Course Handicap = Handicap Index * (Slope / 113) + (Course Rating - Par)
The last bracket will not be used by CONGU but I believe it will in Europe.

Incidentally, has Portugal actually implemented WHS yet?[/QUOTt ex



rulefan said:



			The only information I can see is the image of the card in post #36 which gives 5 from 6.6-7.4 and 3 from 4.6-5.5
What exact handicap did you use?
Course Handicap = Handicap Index * (Slope / 113) + (Course Rating - Par)
The last bracket will not be used by CONGU but I believe it will in Europe.

Incidentally, has Portugal actually implemented WHS yet?
		
Click to expand...

My exact is 4.6 and looking at the chart closer I see it's  EGA .
So are their SR different to USGA ? 
Don't know about Portugal and WHS
		
Click to expand...


----------



## rulefan (Jan 18, 2020)

The CR formula has changed for the USGA. They now include + (CR-Par) in the calculation when they didn't before. Whereas I believe EGA did.
Could it be you had seen an 'old' USGA chart?


----------



## upsidedown (Jan 18, 2020)

rulefan said:



			The CR formula has changed for the USGA. They now include + (CR-Par) in the calculation when they didn't before. Whereas I believe EGA did.
Could it be you had seen an 'old' USGA chart?
		
Click to expand...

https://postimg.cc/MMnvxzPG
This is the table from today , Slope rating higher but less shots using 4.6. 
The USGA ones I've been using have been online. 
From research last night looks like Portugal are going over to WHS May to Aug 
Have you a link to the tables you use please ?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 18, 2020)

upsidedown said:



https://postimg.cc/MMnvxzPG
This is the table from today , Slope rating higher but less shots using 4.6.
The USGA ones I've been using have been online.
From research last night looks like Portugal are going over to WHS May to Aug
Have you a link to the tables you use please ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm in England. We don't change til November 2nd and won't be using (CR - Par)

But the tables are different from course to course and tee to tee


----------



## duncan mackie (Jan 18, 2020)

upsidedown said:



https://postimg.cc/MMnvxzPG
This is the table from today , Slope rating higher but less shots using 4.6.
The USGA ones I've been using have been online.
From research last night looks like Portugal are going over to WHS May to Aug
Have you a link to the tables you use please ?
		
Click to expand...

Those handicaps are adjusted to par ie they do not represent purely the handicap index relative to slope and course rating - your clue is in the adjustment shown to scr golfers from each tee...


----------



## upsidedown (Jan 18, 2020)

duncan mackie said:



			Those handicaps are adjusted to par ie they do not represent purely the handicap index relative to slope and course rating - your clue is in the adjustment shown to scr golfers from each tee...
		
Click to expand...

So when UK clubs publish their tables will they be similar ?

So should we have used the USGA tables for our trip out here then , rather than the local ones ?


----------



## duncan mackie (Jan 18, 2020)

upsidedown said:



			So when UK clubs publish their tables will they be similar ?

So should we have used the USGA tables for our trip out here then , rather than the local ones ?
		
Click to expand...

No, they will follow the WHS basis, and have stated that they wont include the CR/PAR adjustment.

Why would you use USGA tables in an EGA handicapping region not currently implementing the WHS? Or, put another way, it's entirely up to you what you decide to use. Note the way those tables have been done delivers a simple handicap shift; the relative handicaps are the same as the USGA calculations (or should be!)


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 21, 2020)

rulefan said:



			This (copied from National Club Golfer) is a reasonable taster

*World Handicap System key features*

WHS will use the USGA course and slope rating system – your handicap will *change depending on the difficulty of the course* and the competition conditions
A minimum of 54 holes will be required to gain a handicap but that can come from any combination of 9 or 18-hole scores
Handicaps will be calculated using the best eight of the last 20 scores. The 0.1 increase will disappear
Both competitive and recreational rounds  Supplementary Scores will be able to count for handicap
CSS will be replaced by a new system known as the abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment


Click to expand...

I believe the highlighted bit above probably needs rewording, as it will cause confusion to golfers when it comes in. As far as I am aware, the "course" handicap does NOT change based on the difficulty of the course, it only changes based on the relative difficulty between scratch and bogey players (i.e. the Slope). So, you will have courses with similar slope ratings, yet there is a big difference in what CR is relative to par.

This being the case, I'm wondering why, after the calculation of Handicap Index x Slope / 113 to get course handicap, why will a a further adjustment not be made where (CR-Par) is added to get the final course handicap? As I understand, this is what is / will be done in North America. And, it seems that it would get rid of most of the confusion, as players will not be puzzled why they are not getting more shots at a tough course. It will also allow them to compare their score to a standard 36 points when working out if they played to handicap or not, which we all know most golfers do now anyway (incorrectly)


----------

