95% Calculation to go?

[Banchory Buddha]

We had a conversation this morning whilst playing and without knowing about this thread. I just couldn't see why the 95% couldn't have somehow be taken care of in the players handicap index and just leave that, and the playing handicap, to worry about. If a lower handicapper needs more stokes, or a higher less strokes to play equal golf then just sort it on the handicap index they give us.

100%

In the article there's waffle about "we did this anyway in the old system but it was hidden" (then a completely unrelated point about annual reviews)

As Rulefan says, it's generally just the one shot here or there anyway in most cases, so why complicate things.

 

[wjemather]

Or a 3rd outcome, it could be embedded into Course Handicap

CONGU could also adopt the WHS recommendation in Appendix C, and increase the allowance to 100% for small fields.
Now that would make someone's head explode.

 

[chrisd]

100%

In the article there's waffle about "we did this anyway in the old system but it was hidden" (then a completely unrelated point about annual reviews)

As Rulefan says, it's generally just the one shot here or there anyway in most cases, so why complicate things.

Exactly- I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying hide it

 

[nickjdavis]

Or a 3rd outcome, it could be embedded into Course Handicap

Which will instantly render every clubs boards, that show the HI to CH conversion tables, obsolete.

 

[wjemather]

Exactly- I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying hide it

If you bake in the allowance for singles stroke play, then you either have to adjust all the other allowances accordingly (including singles match play) or accept significant inherent bias towards low handicappers in those formats.

 

[wjemather]

Which will instantly render every clubs boards, that show the HI to CH conversion tables, obsolete.

Re-rating will do that anyway.

 

[rosecott]

Undoubtedly, but with changes in the past it's been around 3 years to get the relevant data, we're now seeing two major areas of concern after one year

Two major areas of concern that seem to be centred in a small area of Northern Scotland.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I hope we do what Australia does.
No such thing as Course Handicap - they have no word for it.
Old handicap was what you played off in medals and stablefords and this has been replaced with Daily Handicap which uses 93% in their conversion from Handicap Index via slope rating.

 

[nickjdavis]

Re-rating will do that anyway.

I didn't realise we were talking about re-rating of courses?

 

[wjemather]

I didn't realise we were talking about re-rating of courses?

We're not. I was merely highlighting that the boards have a very limited life expectancy, even without systemic changes.

 

[Swango1980]

If you bake in the allowance for singles stroke play, then you either have to adjust all the other allowances accordingly (including singles match play) or accept significant inherent bias towards low handicappers in those formats.

Are you sure "significant" is the right word? I'll quote rulefan's post:

"It seems that 95% is being blamed for 46 stableford points. Can 95% really make that difference? It gives a PH of 29 for a CH of 30!"

So, maybe a 30 handicapper (now) plays against a scratch golfer and gets 2 shots on 12 holes, 1 shot on the rest. If 95% was embedded into course handicap, the 30 handicapper would only get 29 shots. Do you think 30 handicappers will be lining the streets of England in protest, due to the significant change of only getting 2 shots on 11 holes instead of 12?

 

[rulefan]

Or a 3rd outcome, it could be embedded into Course Handicap

That is what they have done in Australia

THE W.H.S. FORMULA FOR AN 18-HOLE DAILY HANDICAP = ((GA Handicap x Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Scratch Rating minus Par)) x 0.93.

Where GA Handicap = Handicap Index

Edit: Whilst I was faffing around looking for it I now see Voyager had already done it.

 

[Swango1980]

Which will instantly render every clubs boards, that show the HI to CH conversion tables, obsolete.

Agreed, but if it was decided that embedding 95% into course handicap made the system so much more easy for golfers to understand, would the fact clubs have to update their boards be a good enough reason to leave it alone. Even if only the % changed, many clubs would need to update their allowance boards anyway.

It would all need to be done in one go. When I discussed this with Gemma, authorities will also need to decide on other issued, such as including CR-Par within the Course Handicap. Maybe we'll end up incorporating it like the Americans, or vice versa.

 

[Swango1980]

That is what they have done in Australia

Indeed, as I stated in Post 15

 

[wjemather]

Are you sure "significant" is the right word? I'll quote rulefan's post:

"It seems that 95% is being blamed for 46 stableford points. Can 95% really make that difference? It gives a PH of 29 for a CH of 30!"

So, maybe a 30 handicapper (now) plays against a scratch golfer and gets 2 shots on 12 holes, 1 shot on the rest. If 95% was embedded into course handicap, the 30 handicapper would only get 29 shots. Do you think 30 handicappers will be lining the streets of England in protest, due to the significant change of only getting 2 shots on 11 holes instead of 12?

Yes, "significant" is the correct mathematical terminology. You seem to be conflating that with whether it's noticeable (or not) to the average golfer.

Edit: It should be noted that any change would be more noticeable (and significant) in Scotland, where CH is not rounded prior to PH calculation.

 

[chrisd]

If you bake in the allowance for singles stroke play, then you either have to adjust all the other allowances accordingly (including singles match play) or accept significant inherent bias towards low handicappers in those formats.

Significant inherent bias ?

How biased can it be to make ordinary golfers be at a huge advantage or disadvantage in a game where handicaps alter all the time and are affected by scores recorded, in some cases, 2 or 3 years ago?

 

[rulefan]

Yes, "significant" is the correct mathematical terminology. You seem to be conflating that with whether it's noticeable (or not) to the average golfer.

I reckon most (not all) would not notice a change on the clubhouse boards if they included CR-Par and 0.93 (or 0.95) in a combined Course/Playing Handicap (except for the faff in not having to calculate 95%).

 

[BiMGuy]

If you bake in the allowance for singles stroke play, then you either have to adjust all the other allowances accordingly (including singles match play) or accept significant inherent bias towards low handicappers in those formats.

I’ve no problem with that at all. In fact I would encourage it.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes, "significant" is the correct mathematical terminology. You seem to be conflating that with whether it's noticeable (or not) to the average golfer.

Edit: It should be noted that any change would be more noticeable (and significant) in Scotland, where CH is not rounded prior to PH calculation.

I think you need to know your audience. You are speaking to golfers, you are not in a mathematical conference

Perhaps this is the trap the authorities have fallen into. They have tried to develop the "perfect" mathematical system, and lost most of their intended audience.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If you bake in the allowance for singles stroke play, then you either have to adjust all the other allowances accordingly (including singles match play) or accept significant inherent bias towards low handicappers in those formats.

The accordingly could be to leave them as they are.
I find it very unlikely that the stats gave us 85% and 75% as the best answers. They are more likely to be very rough approximations. Whether they would need to be changed, I can't say for certain. Leaving them as they are, but embedding 95% or 93% might make them more accurate than they are now, who knows?
In the Australian system they use the word "handicap" once only.
Unlike our 3 uses of Handicap Index, Course Handicap, Playing Handicap.
GA Index and Daily Handicap.
Far less confusion and disquiet - none mostly.