95%?

[tnjgb]

To beat it all you have to round the Course Handicap to a whole figure before applying the 95% which can take you down another shot. At least you have to do that in England.

 

[williamalex1]

Despite Billy's veiled suggestion that I'm as old as Methusela, I only have CONGU manuals going back to 2001 - no mention of 3/8 or 1/3 in them, just full in singles and 3/4 elsewhere (1/2 in the dreaded foursomes).

I remember we used 9/14th years ago, so that 24 h/cs wouldn't get 2 strokes at any hole, when 24 was the maximum H/C allowance back in the day.

 

[williamalex1]

Off the top of my head, and some of these are going back a bit:
7/8 ind Stableford
3/4 individual and fourball matchplay
7/16 foursomes strokeplay and matchplay (7/16 the difference of combined)
3/8 greensomes
Never heard of 1/3 in any format.

It was easier than it might sound, we just "knew" the numbers after a while, if you didn't you just looked at the chart on the noticeboard.

Probably 3/8ths I was thinking of , nearly 1/3rd

 

[jim8flog]

So what exactly is the purpose of a playing handicap being created at 95% - it’s just trying to manufacture results.

See post #5

95% works quite as you have to be over 10 handicap to lose shots off the Course handicap.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

See post #5

95% works quite as you have to be over 10 handicap to lose shots off the Course handicap.

It’s nonsense - complete nonsense that just add more confusion to a situation that is full of it. It’s a mess and there is zero need to add in 95% strokeplay allowances , it adds nothing and there is no justification for it. They have done a great job of making everything over complicated and you can clearly see that they are very lucky lockdown happened - right now some people still can’t even see all their handicap information via their own ISV and have to go to a separate website

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Your second paragraph is incorrect. It is your course handicap that should dictate when you can pick up, not playing handicap.

That is indeed the guidance that I have from our golf manager...play in accordance with my CH.

 

[jim8flog]

I have got one of those cards with it all from about 2002
Singles Matchplay was still 3/4
Stableford was full handicap

I remember stableford at 7/8 when I first joined this club in the late 80s.

Doing a little bit of digging around I came across
Ever wonder why Stableford competitions often use 7/8 of handicap? In the early days, the maximum man's handicap was 21. Dr Stableford believed that no-one should have more than one stroke per hole in his system; this adjustment allowed no more than 18 strokes per round.

 

[jim8flog]

Here's how my handicap looks still:

1. EG website.
It shows a number (+1.6) that is completely wrong. I have worked out that the scores have been averaged against CSS only, CR hasn't been used which contradicts all advice on here, and no scores have been de-sloped.
Correct number should be around +.0.5, so a whole shot out.
My score from 1st November isn't showing so I don't have enough scores used.

2. Club website.
No information showing via "My Golf" and "Handicap Record" only "Error connecting to WHS" , but via "Competitions", "Handicaps" the same number is listed and magically the score from 1st Nov is listed.

3. IG App.
The same number is listed, but only 10 scores are showing, but as you scroll down the list, the same 10 appear in order time after time ad infinitum.

?‍?‍?‍

I find the IG ones a bit odd.. Maybe they have not got round to you club yet.

Via the club website

Nothing in handicap record- unable to connect to WHS portal but that is a rights issue with DOTGOLF that is ongoing

I can see in Mygolf/MY ROUNDS - my H.I. my Course Handicap on each tee and what 95% is, and my full score and handicap history going back to January 2018

on the app

I can see some the above including low H.I. except as you say I can only go back to July for individual Score

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Here's how my handicap looks still:

1. EG website.
It shows a number (+1.6) that is completely wrong. I have worked out that the scores have been averaged against CSS only, CR hasn't been used which contradicts all advice on here, and no scores have been de-sloped.
Correct number should be around +.0.5, so a whole shot out.
My score from 1st November isn't showing so I don't have enough scores used.

2. Club website.
No information showing via "My Golf" and "Handicap Record" only "Error connecting to WHS" , but via "Competitions", "Handicaps" the same number is listed and magically the score from 1st Nov is listed.

3. IG App.
The same number is listed, but only 10 scores are showing, but as you scroll down the list, the same 10 appear in order time after time ad infinitum.

?‍?‍?‍

1. My HI on the EG website is fine , worked out ok and can see all my scores and which ones count

2. On IG my HI has been different 5 times from 6 to 0.3 - right now it’s ok

3. I can see all my scores but the same as you we can’t see which ones Count and it shows unable to connect to WHS

I believe the unable to connect is because Dotgolf are not allowing ISV to connect to their database at the moment - why I have no idea

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I find the IG ones a bit odd.. Maybe they have not got round to you club yet.

Via the club website

Nothing in handicap record- unable to connect to WHS portal but that is a rights issue with DOTGOLF that is ongoing

I can see in Mygolf/MY ROUNDS - my H.I. my Course Handicap on each tee and what 95% is, and my full score and handicap history going back to January 2018

on the app

I can see some the above including low H.I. except as you say I can only go back to July for individual Score

How on earth can there be a “rights” issue when this whole transition has been on the cards for a number of years now - why the hell hasn’t it been sorted before we transferred- it’s a disgrace that Dotgolf are not allowing ISV the API connection for handicap information

 

[rulefan]

Here's how my handicap looks still:

1. EG website.
It shows a number (+1.6) that is completely wrong. I have worked out that the scores have been averaged against CSS only,

CSS was used by allocating the difference between CSS and SSS to PCC. The SSS and CR are interchangeable.

and no scores have been de-sloped

What figures (column heading) did you use? All of ours seem to be ok.

 

[rulefan]

Here's how my handicap looks still:
2. Club website.
No information showing via "My Golf" and "Handicap Record" only "Error connecting to WHS" , but via "Competitions", "Handicaps" the same number is listed and magically the score from 1st Nov is listed.

We understand that DotGolf has re-activated the Handicap Score record API for clubs in England (previously disabled by DotGolf on Tuesday).

However, the data is missing "Score Differential" values and this is causing HandicapMaster software to issue an "Unexpected Error" when the Handicap Record is requested in HandicapMaster.

The DotGolf WHS test system is not exhibiting this problem and we therefore presume this is a problem with the WHS production service only. We await further advice from DotGolf.

DotGolf have confirmed that they are investigating the cause of this problem.

HandicapMaster Ltd.

 

[Swango1980]

It’s nonsense - complete nonsense that just add more confusion to a situation that is full of it. It’s a mess and there is zero need to add in 95% strokeplay allowances , it adds nothing and there is no justification for it. They have done a great job of making everything over complicated and you can clearly see that they are very lucky lockdown happened - right now some people still can’t even see all their handicap information via their own ISV and have to go to a separate website

I know you don't like it, and clearly do not understand it. Unfortunately, I'm assuming you have no expertise in the handicapping system, but those that do have expertise in it have been able to justify the 95%. They didn't just pull it out of thin air. I agree, it is another thing to remember compared to the old method, so is not ideal in that sense. However, I have tried to explain earlier in this thread the logic behind it. Whether you understand it or not, is another matter. I'd be all ears if you had an alternative solution that dealt with the problem, without requiring the 95%.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I know you don't like it, and clearly do not understand it. Unfortunately, I'm assuming you have no expertise in the handicapping system, but those that do have expertise in it have been able to justify the 95%. They didn't just pull it out of thin air. I agree, it is another thing to remember compared to the old method, so is not ideal in that sense. However, I have tried to explain earlier in this thread the logic behind it. Whether you understand it or not, is another matter. I'd be all ears if you had an alternative solution that dealt with the problem, without requiring the 95%.

I believe you shouldn’t make assumptions pal

And what exactly do you believe is the problem that 95% resolves ?

 

[rulefan]

Sorry I can't work out what that means.

It has been stated multiple times on here that the "differential" is the gross score minus the CR (for me 71.5), and recently added that the CR goes up or down exactly as CSS.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but if I shot 72,the differential was 0.5, but if CSS went up one, the differential would be - 0.5. (CSS only varied from SSS once.

My scores though have clearly all been worked out versus 72 (and 73 once) and not 71.5.
They haven't been multiplied by 113/128, ie 0.88 (or 0.9 whichever is correct).

The arithmetic should be the same.
Pre WHS CONGU had no such as animal as PCC. But for the conversion it was determined that CSS - SSS was a suitable alternative. So the WHS output shows CR as the value of the SSS and the difference between CSS and SSS is shown as the PCC.

The Score Differential is = (113/Slope) x (Gross - CR[ie SSS] - PCC[ie CSS-SSS])

I can't explain why you aren't getting that result. Are you looking at the WHS Platform https://org.whsplatform.englandgolf.org/

 

[Swango1980]

I believe you shouldn’t make assumptions pal

And what exactly do you believe is the problem that 95% resolves ?

See post #2 for answer to your question.

I have to make assumptions, when I don't know you. But, from tone of your emails, it certainly doesn't sound like you are an expert. I also assume you have had zero involvement in the development of the World Handicap System

 

[rulefan]

I believe you shouldn’t make assumptions pal

And what exactly do you believe is the problem that 95% resolves ?

That in stroke play higher handicappers are more likely to win competitions out of proportion to to the number of entries.

 

[Ethan]

I believe you shouldn’t make assumptions pal

And what exactly do you believe is the problem that 95% resolves ?

It is a statistical correction, determined after analysis of scoring patterns by handicap. Higher handicap players have a greater variability in score, and the day your variability is in a positive direction is the day you win. One reason handicaps aren't anchored around average or typical score is to take care of this problem, but it doesn't quite fix it, so a correction factor is helpful. Less needed in matchplay because the higher handicapper does not use their shots evenly across a round, which means they waste a few in matchplay because you can only win or lose any one hole once.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

That in stroke play higher handicappers are more likely to win competitions out of proportion to to the number of entries.

Based on what because it’s certainly not something that I have witnessed in 8 plus years doing comps - if anything it’s the mid handicaps that clear up as opposed to high handicaps. There is no need for 95% - they have already given you a handicap for that course - it’s supposed to now be a fairer reflection in regards your play so why then add further adjustments to try and manufacture some further levelling when the handicap is supposed to do that.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

See post #2 for answer to your question.

I have to make assumptions, when I don't know you. But, from tone of your emails, it certainly doesn't sound like you are an expert. I also assume you have had zero involvement in the development of the World Handicap System

You have to make zero assumptions at all - and as for tone - have a look in the mirror next time you pass one.