• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

95% Calculation to go?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 30522
  • Start date Start date
Voyager EMH said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of course they are rounded, but if 95% (or 93%) of 85% was more equitable, the allowance would have been 80%.

With the previous GA system being extremely similar to WHS, there has been very little change for Australian golfers to get to grips with.
 
wjemather said:
Of course they are rounded, but if 95% (or 93%) of 85% was more equitable, the allowance would have been 80%.

With the previous GA system being extremely similar to WHS, there has been very little change for Australian golfers to get to grips with.
Click to expand...
Please show your working-out?
 
rosecott said:
Two major areas of concern that seem to be centred in a small area of Northern Scotland.
Click to expand...
Strange that, first the SGU, then the EGU. Amazing they all take such heed of a small part of Scotland.

Ever think maybe its you?
 
Voyager EMH said:
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.
Click to expand...
That would be an upgrade for sure. (y)
versus
"What's your handicap"? ..."Which one"?
 
Here is an example. One example is nothing to extrapolate from. Don't make too much of this.

Player has a Course Handicap of 15.3. Current system he/she is rounded to 15 then takes all allowances from this. Individual strokeplay handicap is 14.

Apply the 95% to 15.3 and it is still 15. His individual strokeplay handicap is one shot higher.

His 85% and 75% allowances remain the same as before. They do not need to be changed.
 
Last edited:
Banchory Buddha said:
That would be an upgrade for sure. (y)
versus
"What's your handicap"? ..."Which one"?
Click to expand...
Virtually all American golfers I've met use 'Index'. My assumption, confirmed when I've queried, is that it's the 'constant' wheras 'handicap' indeed varies.
It's simply that Brits have used 'Handicap' for a long time and haven't got use to the 'new way'.
 
Last edited:
Voyager EMH said:
Here is an example. One example is nothing to extrapolate from. Don't make too much of this.

Player has a Course Handicap of 15.3. Current system he is rounded to 15 then takes all allowances from this. Individual strokeplay handicap is 14.

Apply the 95% to 15.3 and it is still 15. His individual strokeplay handicap is one shot higher.

His 85% and 75% allowances remain the same as before. They do not need to be changed.
Click to expand...
Except for viewers in Scotland (y)
 
Voyager EMH said:
Here is an example. One example is nothing to extrapolate from. Don't make too much of this.

Player has a Course Handicap of 15.3. Current system he/she is rounded to 15 then takes all allowances from this. Individual strokeplay handicap is 14.

Apply the 95% to 15.3 and it is still 15. His individual strokeplay handicap is one shot higher.

His 85% and 75% allowances remain the same as before. They do not need to be changed.
Click to expand...
Sorry Voyager, how does somebody in Leicestershire have a course handicap of 15.3? Perhaps I have missed something and if so apologies
 
Swango1980 said:
Still don't know why they didn't just embed the 95% into the Course handicap calculation in the first place, instead of golfers having to apply a playing allowance in virtually every competitive round they play (unless singles match play), or not applying it at all if all they are worried about is handicap. Just stick it in there, give players a course handicap, and let them get on with playing golf. The only time they need worry about applying something would be fourball match-play, but they were used to that from pre-WHS anyway. Any other playing allowances are likely to be in less common formats, in which a competition organiser is likely to provide playing handicaps to players (like in Opens, in which that was frequently the case pre-WHS)

The Australians were bold enough to do this, but I guess they are happy to make bold decisions after kicking a World No 1 tennis player out of their country.
Click to expand...

I think you answered your own question in the in the third sentence.

We play lots of different formats where I play not just singles and 4BBB and you need a system that works at every club.
 
3offTheTee said:
Sorry Voyager, how does somebody in Leicestershire have a course handicap of 15.3? Perhaps I have missed something and if so apologies
Click to expand...
Well, if he/she has a HI of 15.3 and plays a course with SR 113...

Or, if he/she has a HI of 15.0 and plays a course with SR 115 = (15.265)

I think the bit you missed was the discussion of changing to a system where the 95% is embedded in the calculation (eg the Australian system) and course handicap is not rounded, but the only rounding that occurs is after the 95% is applied.
Your apology is whole-heartedly accepted.
 
jim8flog said:
Personally I do not see any problem with the current system just a problem with those incapable of reading the rules of the comp and the charts provided or checking or the computer where it is all displayed.
Click to expand...

bingo for me too.

and those who are too oblivious to do a bit of research and understand the topic a bit more, rather than just scream ‘it’s rubbish and everything needs changing’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top