95%

[tobywood]

Hi I have just been reading the thread on the reasons for playing off 95% of ones handicap and can see the point but the way it is implemented is a problem. If one takes someone playing a course with a slope of 113 and a h/c index of 9.5 they will end up playing off 10after the 95% someone playing off 11.4 would also play off 10 du to way it is calculated, the figures are rounded up or down after each calculation, this is obviously not fair. Surly it should be built into playing h/c calculation or only rounded up or down after all the calculations have been done, if this was done the player off 9.5 would be 9 and 11.4 would be 11 a full 2 shot difference just du to the way the maths is being applied. Not good.

 

[jim8flog]

It is mainly about H.I to CH tables on show at a course so nobody has to actually do any calculations in singles strokeplay comps. The 95% is done by the computers after the card has been submitted.

In Scotland it is done after everything else is calculated.

What they do about the tables maybe someone from there can answer.

 

[wjemather]

You make a fair point, but the bottom line is, the only truly "fair" golf is players playing at the same time in the same weather, off scratch.

Although I've had my fair share of moans about the way handicaps have been transferred to WHS from CONGU, any handicap system is just educated guesswork in trying to equal out a huge amount of variations, the biggest of which is our own random performance each day.

There's never going to be a perfect system,they've done their best to get it as good as they can with the data available.

However CONGU have gone out of their way to be inconsistent both within GB&I and with how WHS has been adopted in most of the world.

Many of the options they have chosen are unjustifiable (e.g. "cr - par") and actually harm the equity of the system. Rounding pre-PH calc is one of the most egregious.

 

[rosecott]

Hi I have just been reading the thread on the reasons for playing off 95% of ones handicap and can see the point but the way it is implemented is a problem. If one takes someone playing a course with a slope of 113 and a h/c index of 9.5 they will end up playing off 10after the 95% someone playing off 11.4 would also play off 10 du to way it is calculated, the figures are rounded up or down after each calculation, this is obviously not fair. Surly it should be built into playing h/c calculation or only rounded up or down after all the calculations have been done, if this was done the player off 9.5 would be 9 and 11.4 would be 11 a full 2 shot difference just du to the way the maths is being applied. Not good.

I would recommend the 11.4 to play only on courses with slopes of 120 and higher - there should be a great deal of choice.

 

[rulefan]

Many of the options they have chosen are unjustifiable (e.g. "cr - par") and actually harm the equity of the system.

How exactly?

 

[wjemather]

How exactly?

Without going too deeply into the maths, whenever rounded figures are used within a calculation the difference in the end result can be significant. These significant differences affect the designed equity of the system.

PH isn't the only area where CONGU (and the individual unions) have prioritised perceived simplicity in calculation over accuracy and equity. On their own, the resulting differences may be small, but when combined and multiplied they occasionally result in significant differences.

 

[rulefan]

Of course all the decimals and rounding accuracy may be somewhat irrelevant if not spurious when the score for a hole and stroke indices are whole numbers. Also look at the supposed accuracy of course rating. A cumulative error of mis-measuring bunkers or size of greens can easily affect the resultant CR which is supposed to be accurate to 1 dec.
Handicaps are really a crude tool. Does a player with a cap of 15 always score 1 better than his neighbour who plays off 16? Whereas a player off 5 will invariably have a better score than his neighbour off 16 (but rarely exactly 11 strokes).

But don't think I am disparaging the system. It does a good job and is the best we've got. But we shouldn't expect too much from it.

 

[jim8flog]

Without going too deeply into the maths, whenever rounded figures are used within a calculation the difference in the end result can be significant. These significant differences affect the designed equity of the system.

PH isn't the only area where CONGU (and the individual unions) have prioritised perceived simplicity in calculation over accuracy and equity. On their own, the resulting differences may be small, but when combined and multiplied they occasionally result in significant differences.

Within the great scheme of things in golf is 1 shot before you start to play really that significant.

I know one shot can be the difference between winning and losing but so can one missed putt.

Is truly unfair that somebody off 0.4 plays off 0 and somebody who plays off 0.5 plays off 1.

 

[wjemather]

Within the great scheme of things in golf is 1 shot before you start to play really that significant.

I know one shot can be the difference between winning and losing but so can one missed putt.

Is truly unfair that somebody off 0.4 plays off 0 and somebody who plays off 0.5 plays off 1.

While it's a potential one stroke difference for the individual, it's a potential two stroke difference between competitors.

Extending to pairs, it becomes a potential 4 stroke difference.

How significant that is depends on how equitable the system's recommended allowances and default calculations inherently are. But it certainly isn't consistent and creates unnecessary confusion for people playing competitions both in and out of Scotland in particular.

 

[Foxholer]

Hi I have just been reading the thread on the reasons for playing off 95% of ones handicap and can see the point but the way it is implemented is a problem. If one takes someone playing a course with a slope of 113 and a h/c index of 9.5 they will end up playing off 10after the 95% someone playing off 11.4 would also play off 10 du to way it is calculated, the figures are rounded up or down after each calculation, this is obviously not fair. Surly it should be built into playing h/c calculation or only rounded up or down after all the calculations have been done, if this was done the player off 9.5 would be 9 and 11.4 would be 11 a full 2 shot difference just du to the way the maths is being applied. Not good.

It would also be 'unfair' if calculated your way - as the '95%' would, effectively, not be applied! In fact, the handicap 'diference' would be increased from 1.9 'actual' to 2 following the calculation!

 

[rulefan]

While it's a potential one stroke difference for the individual, it's a potential two stroke difference between competitors.

Extending to pairs, it becomes a potential 4 stroke difference.

How significant that is depends on how equitable the system's recommended allowances and default calculations inherently are. But it certainly isn't consistent and creates unnecessary confusion for people playing competitions both in and out of Scotland in particular.

It's the old problem of only the minority being in step But fear not. No one will stray over the borders when they need passports.

 

[Foxholer]

...
Extending to pairs, it becomes a potential 4 stroke difference.
...

H'mm! I'm a bit dubious about that!

 

[wjemather]

H'mm! I'm a bit dubious about that!

Ok, here is an example to illustrate the difference between playing in Scotland and the rest of GB&I (Slope=113, PH=85%):

In England/Wales/Ireland:
A1 = HI 11.2 = PH 9
A2 = HI 17.1 = PH 14
B1 = HI 9.9 = PH 9
B2 = HI 15.8 = PH 14

In Scotland:
A1 = HI 11.2 = PH 10
A2 = HI 17.1 = PH 15
B1 = HI 9.9 = PH 8
B2 = HI 15.8 = PH 13

When playing in England/Wales/Ireland: A1 would not have a stroke on SI 10, A2 on SI 15; B1 gets a stroke on SI 9, and B2 on SI 14. If each of those players scores count on those respective holes, that is a 4 stroke difference from how they would have scored if playing in Scotland.

 

[Foxholer]

Ok, here is an example to illustrate the difference between playing in Scotland and the rest of GB&I (Slope=113, PH=85%):

In England/Wales/Ireland:
A1 = HI 11.2 = PH 9
A2 = HI 17.1 = PH 14
B1 = HI 9.9 = PH 9
B2 = HI 15.8 = PH 14

In Scotland:
A1 = HI 11.2 = PH 10
A2 = HI 17.1 = PH 15
B1 = HI 9.9 = PH 8
B2 = HI 15.8 = PH 13

When playing in England/Wales/Ireland: A1 would not have a stroke on SI 10, A2 on SI 15; B1 gets a stroke on SI 9, and B2 on SI 14. If each of those players scores count on those respective holes, that is a 4 stroke difference from how they would have scored if playing in Scotland.

Team cumulative games, perhaps (though in 30+ years, I haven't played such a comp - even as a club member in Scotland! Have you?)! But, in Pairs/4BBB (which I've played countless times), cumulative difference is irrelevant!

 

[wjemather]

Team cumulative games (in 30+ years, I haven't played such a comp!) perhaps! But, in Pairs (which I've playd countless times), cumulative difference is irrelevant!

Ok, here's how it breaks down... say it's better-ball Stableford (85% allowance) with pairs as before.

Player A1 makes a gross par on SI 10 hole (A2 doesn't score), team scores 2 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 3 points in Scot
Player A2 makes a gross par on SI 15 hole (A1 doesn't score), team scores 2 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 3 points in Scot
Player B1 makes a gross par on SI 9 hole (B2 doesn't score), team scores 2 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 1 point in Scot
Player B2 makes a gross par on SI 14 hole (B1 doesn't score), team scores 2 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 1 point in Scot

If, each pair score 2 points per hole for the rest of the round, the final scores are as follows:

Pair A: 36 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 38 points in Scot
Pair B: 36 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 34 points in Scot

Result: both pairs tie with 36 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, but pair A win by 4 points in Scotland.
(It would be a 4 stroke difference in medal play).

 

[Foxholer]

Ok, here's how it breaks down... say it's better-ball Stableford (85% allowance) with pairs as before.

Player A1 makes a gross par on SI 10 hole (A2 doesn't score), team scores 2 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 3 points in Scot
Player A2 makes a gross par on SI 15 hole (A1 doesn't score), team scores 2 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 3 points in Scot
Player B1 makes a gross par on SI 9 hole (B2 doesn't score), team scores 2 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 1 point in Scot
Player B2 makes a gross par on SI 14 hole (B1 doesn't score), team scores 2 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 1 point in Scot

If, each pair score 2 points per hole for the rest of the round, the final scores are as follows:

Pair A: 36 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 38 points in Scot
Pair B: 36 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, 34 points in Scot

Result: both pairs tie with 36 points in Eng/Wal/Ire, but pair A win by 4 points in Scotland.
(It would be a 4 stroke difference in medal play).

That 'reply' has absolutely no relevance (except to completely ignore my point!) to the post you quoted! Read it again and perhaps (but I'd prefer you didn't!) reply to THAT post. Again, how often have you played a 2-man scramble that those figures apply to? I never have!
And since when do scores/comps in Scotland have anything to do with those in Eng/Wal/Ire?!!

And why is it of any relevance that England scores differently to Scotland? It's not as if the comp is 'cross-border'! Or that the 'randomness' of the PH calc happens to favour certain numbers? It's little/no different to the old system in that regard!

 

[rulefan]

Ok, here is an example to illustrate the difference between playing in Scotland and the rest of GB&I (Slope=113, PH=85%):

In England/Wales/Ireland:
A1 = HI 11.2 = PH 9
A2 = HI 17.1 = PH 14
B1 = HI 9.9 = PH 9
B2 = HI 15.8 = PH 14

In Scotland:
A1 = HI 11.2 = PH 10
A2 = HI 17.1 = PH 15
B1 = HI 9.9 = PH 8
B2 = HI 15.8 = PH 13

When playing in England/Wales/Ireland: A1 would not have a stroke on SI 10, A2 on SI 15; B1 gets a stroke on SI 9, and B2 on SI 14. If each of those players scores count on those respective holes, that is a 4 stroke difference from how they would have scored if playing in Scotland.

If one of the pairs were from England and their opponents from Scotland they will be playing to the rule appropriate to that country. Other than your issue with arithmetic, where is there a golfing issue?

 

[wjemather]

That 'reply' has absolutely no relevance (except to completely ignore my point!) to the post you quoted! Read it again and perhaps (but I'd prefer you didn't!) reply to THAT post. Again, how often have you played a 2-man scramble that those figures apply to? I never have!
And since when do scores/comps in Scotland have anything to do with those in Eng/Wal/Ire?!!

And why is it of any relevance that England scores differently to Scotland? It's not as if the comp is 'cross-border'! Or that the 'randomness' of the PH calc happens to favour certain numbers? It's little/no different to the old system in that regard!

If one of the pairs were from England and their opponents from Scotland they will be playing to the rule appropriate to that country. Other than your issue with arithmetic, where is there a golfing issue?

As clearly stated, the example given is four-ball better-ball (NOT 2-ball scramble, NOT cumulative pairs) to illustrate the potential variance in the results of identical scoring due the inconsistent adoption of WHS calculations in GB&I. That is all.

However, in my opinion, having a potential four stroke swing caused by unnecessary rounding, just by virtue of crossing the border, makes the equity of the system somewhat questionable.

In the real world, there are cross-border knockouts and matches for which playing home or away could take on extra significance should any player's index fall on these boundaries.

 

[Foxholer]

As clearly stated, the example given is four-ball better-ball ...
However, in my opinion, having a potential four stroke swing
...

As per my initial reply...I am dubious (as to the likelihood)!
2 Strokes maybe - and rarely - little difference in the 'random' shot allocation/scoring to the old system!
Oh and the Scotland/England comparison is completely irrelevant!

 

[wjemather]

Maybe I didn't get the message across previously...Your opinion is absolute twaddle!!
2 Strokes max! And only rarely - little difference to the old system!
And the Scotland/England is completely irrelevant!

The facts are there. I've no interest in indulging you any further, so I think I'll just be leaving it there.