Alterations to WHS?

[Tashyboy]

Its goal was to modernise it. It achieved its goal.

Those asking for clarity are asking for something it did not set out to give them, so the charge of lack of full insight to its inner workings is invalid.

I dont know the full programming logic code running my TV. I dont need to. I just want it to change channel and let me follow the prompts on the screen.

That the statistics behind expected scores, 8 from 20, PCC, etc are not shared for scrutiny or understood is not a flaw in WHS. Its really none of your business.

Just play your golf and type in your score. The blackbox will do the rest for you behind the scenes. The clarity, crystal.

But that was the point of the old system, clarity. You knew exactly where you stood Re scores. I fully understand the thought process behind the changes and fully agree with it. But 17 pages later, something tells me that we now have a “ new improved “ system that in your words Has given us something it has not set out to give us.

 

[Voyager EMH]

One of our roll-ups, who have always ignored 95%, will probably ignore CR-Par (yellow tees 69.1 - 70), because it is simpler to ignore it.

Played in a club awayday earlier this year organised by the club captain - random draw - teams of 4 - best 2 from 4 AmAm.
Consensus was to ignore 85% - because "Its just a fun game/day."
I kept me gob shut. (I'm sure that will surprise some)

It seems to me that in social golf, the majority make up their own rules of handicapping loosely based on bits of WHS and the previous system.
Club comps, the majority does what Backsticks says, merely play and let the system do what it does.

This is my experience of the real world of amateur club golf where I play.

 

[D-S]

One of our roll-ups, who have always ignored 95%, will probably ignore CR-Par (yellow tees 69.1 - 70), because it is simpler to ignore it.

Played in a club awayday earlier this year organised by the club captain - random draw - teams of 4 - best 2 from 4 AmAm.
Consensus was to ignore 85% - because "Its just a fun game/day."
I kept me gob shut. (I'm sure that will surprise some)

It seems to me that in social golf, the majority make up their own rules of handicapping loosely based on bits of WHS and the previous system.
Club comps, the majority does what Backsticks says, merely play and let the system do what it does.

This is my experience of the real world of amateur club golf where I play.

On a similar vei, we played a friendly 8 a side 4BB match recently at Burnham and Berrow. Due to the toughness of the course and teams of differing ages and abilities (as well as Mixed) a variety of tees were used. The consensus was 'just use your CH off the Board' with no 90% etc. as it was all too confusing. CR-Par as part of CH (taken from the boards) would have really helped to get the shot allowance at least somewhere approaching equitable.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I'm hoping they'll be putting the world into the WHS. But I expect you are not wrong.

I wish they would call it a World Handicap Framework as a system implies a single, consistent way of doing things.

 

[doublebogey7]

One of our roll-ups, who have always ignored 95%, will probably ignore CR-Par (yellow tees 69.1 - 70), because it is simpler to ignore it.

Played in a club awayday earlier this year organised by the club captain - random draw - teams of 4 - best 2 from 4 AmAm.
Consensus was to ignore 85% - because "Its just a fun game/day."
I kept me gob shut. (I'm sure that will surprise some)

It seems to me that in social golf, the majority make up their own rules of handicapping loosely based on bits of WHS and the previous system.
Club comps, the majority does what Backsticks says, merely play and let the system do what it does.

This is my experience of the real world of amateur club golf where I play.

Surely it will be easier to not ignore CR-Par given that boards and APs will include the calculation.
Broadly agree with the rest of the post though I'm sure there's a wild variety of way roll ups are managed out there.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Surely it will be easier to not ignore CR-Par given that boards and APs will include the calculation.
Broadly agree with the rest of the post though I'm sure there's a wild variety of way roll ups are managed out there.

They are likely to continue with the handicaps they have on their own roll-up spreadsheet.
And they won't like the idea of "losing a shot" because yellow tee CR is 69.1 against a par of 70.
It is the "losing a shot" that so many have railed against 95% for individual strokeplay - and "losing two shots" in 85% AmAms.
I'm not certain this will happen - merely basing it on what I have witnessed so far. (I strongly suspect)

 

[Deleted member 29109]

One of our roll-ups, who have always ignored 95%, will probably ignore CR-Par (yellow tees 69.1 - 70), because it is simpler to ignore it.

Played in a club awayday earlier this year organised by the club captain - random draw - teams of 4 - best 2 from 4 AmAm.
Consensus was to ignore 85% - because "Its just a fun game/day."
I kept me gob shut. (I'm sure that will surprise some)

It seems to me that in social golf, the majority make up their own rules of handicapping loosely based on bits of WHS and the previous system.
Club comps, the majority does what Backsticks says, merely play and let the system do what it does.

This is my experience of the real world of amateur club golf where I play.

Thankfully 96.34% of the golf I play, we just count the number of shots we take on each hole and add them up at the end to see who had the lowest score.

Even when I enter a club comp that is a stableford, that’s what I do.

The few rounds I play outside of that that are stablefords are usually with the FiL and we just use the England golf app and let that work it all out for us.

Go out and shoot a score, add it up. Why make it more complicated?

 

[Backsticks]

Go out and shoot a score, add it up. Why make it more complicated?

Because playing unhandicapped medal doesnt appeal to 99.9% of golfers.
They play handicapped matches and competitions, they play stableford, fourballs, and v par. Because its more fun that way.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Its goal was to modernise it. It achieved its goal.

Those asking for clarity are asking for something it did not set out to give them, so the charge of lack of full insight to its inner workings is invalid.

I dont know the full programming logic code running my TV. I dont need to. I just want it to change channel and let me follow the prompts on the screen.

That the statistics behind expected scores, 8 from 20, PCC, etc are not shared for scrutiny or understood is not a flaw in WHS. Its really none of your business.

Just play your golf and type in your score. The blackbox will do the rest for you behind the scenes. The clarity, crystal.

Précis: Don't worry your pretty little head about anything.

 

[Backsticks]

Précis: Don't worry your pretty little head about anything.

Yes, pretty much. We have been provided with a system, and dont need to worry about the computations behind the scenes. That has been thought through, devised, and automated for us. We are just the end users.

 

[IanM]

We are just the end users.

So therefore have an interest in what we are compelled to use?

 

[wjemather]

So therefore have an interest in what we are compelled to use?

There is no compulsion to have an official handicap or play in competitions that require one. Indeed, there are many clubs, societies and individuals that exist outside that system.

 

[IanM]

Good spot, apart from the obviously error

 

[doublebogey7]

They are likely to continue with the handicaps they have on their own roll-up spreadsheet.
And they won't like the idea of "losing a shot" because yellow tee CR is 69.1 against a par of 70.
It is the "losing a shot" that so many have railed against 95% for individual strokeplay - and "losing two shots" in 85% AmAms.
I'm not certain this will happen - merely basing it on what I have witnessed so far. (I strongly suspect)

I see they are not using WHS, then this thread has no relevance to their roll ups

 

[Genu9]

That referred to a general update on how things are going in England, including igolf. Anyone reading something else into it was mistaken.

There's no chance EG were going to cover the 2024 WHS update in a public webinar before communicating the details

I wish they would call it a World Handicap Framework as a system implies a single, consistent way of doing things.

Thank you. Someone who understands English as it is written not what they want it to read.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Its goal was to modernise it. It achieved its goal.

Those asking for clarity are asking for something it did not set out to give them, so the charge of lack of full insight to its inner workings is invalid.

I dont know the full programming logic code running my TV. I dont need to. I just want it to change channel and let me follow the prompts on the screen.

That the statistics behind expected scores, 8 from 20, PCC, etc are not shared for scrutiny or understood is not a flaw in WHS. Its really none of your business.

Just play your golf and type in your score. The blackbox will do the rest for you behind the scenes. The clarity, crystal.

It's none of our business, yet it's the system we use year round to determine competition winners and what your handicap is?

Remember when PCC started, Scottsh Golf tellig us it was fine, it was "designed to be less sensitive than CSS". Oh was it now? They refused to hand over the workings, but everyone could see it was wrong, and what happened....the calculation was changed because it was wrong (we still don't know what it is of course)

There's also things like the logic behind Texas Scramble allowances, seeing as these have never been input into any database, how did they come to these allowances? Why is it full handicap in matchplay but 95% in strokeplay (which seems the wrong way around)?

Maybe you do go around in a sea of uninquizitiveness, but others like to understand what's happening, and the blanket refusal to show any of their workings smacks on a lack of confidence in their accuracy

As for the clarity being crystal clear, you've just pointed out how there is none, never mind crystal clear. No wonder you don't want to know more

 

[Swango1980]

It's none of our business, yet it's the system we use year round to determine competition winners and what your handicap is?

Remember when PCC started, Scottsh Golf tellig us it was fine, it was "designed to be less sensitive than CSS". Oh was it now? They refused to hand over the workings, but everyone could see it was wrong, and what happened....the calculation was changed because it was wrong (we still don't know what it is of course)

There's also things like the logic behind Texas Scramble allowances, seeing as these have never been input into any database, how did they come to these allowances? Why is it full handicap in matchplay but 95% in strokeplay (which seems the wrong way around)?

Maybe you do go around in a sea of uninquizitiveness, but others like to understand what's happening, and the blanket refusal to show any of their workings smacks on a lack of confidence in their accuracy

As for the clarity being crystal clear, you've just pointed out how there is none, never mind crystal clear. No wonder you don't want to know more

I probably agree with most here.

But the 95% thing is easy to respond to. In a stroke play competition, a lower handicapper probably had a fairly even (if not slightly better) chance to beat any randomly picked higher handicapper in the field. However, when up against many higher handicappers, then the lower handicappers have a lesser chance at winning entirely than any higher handicapper. Simply because the range of a higher handicappers top 8 will be wider, thus if one of them shoots a score around their best in 20, their score would be better off full handicap than low handicapper doing the same.

In match play, you are only playing against 1 opponent. The higher handicapper will be odds on if they play to their top few scores in 20, regardless of what low guy does. But lower guys chances increase quite a bit if higher handicapper plays a very average to poor round, due to better consistency.

I'd like to think these allowances have been based on the analysis of many many scores. But agree with scramble, to me it is a shambles. Had another one 2 weeks ago. Top 2 teams win easily, no suprise highest handicappers in the comp as usual. Their gross score wasn't impressive for a 4 ball scramble, but nett score was about 20 under par. Probably played a dozen scrambles since WHS, and every single one has been dominated by high handicaps. Only fair way to do it, I think, is to select teams with balanced handicaps.

 

[cliveb]

But agree with scramble, to me it is a shambles. Had another one 2 weeks ago. Top 2 teams win easily, no suprise highest handicappers in the comp as usual. Their gross score wasn't impressive for a 4 ball scramble, but nett score was about 20 under par. Probably played a dozen scrambles since WHS, and every single one has been dominated by high handicaps. Only fair way to do it, I think, is to select teams with balanced handicaps.

Are your scrambles drop out ones? That's the only fair way.

If scrambles aren't drop out, all you need to do is get a team together with one tiger and three hackers.

 

[Swango1980]

Are your scrambles drop out ones? That's the only fair way.

If scrambles aren't drop out, all you need to do is get a team together with one tiger and three hackers.

The scrambles at my club, only really one or 2 a year, are pick your own team generally. So if you want to be competitive, you need to pick players with the right handicap. So you're right, a team with one or 2 low guys to do the scoring (and have each others back if you have a couple), and a couple of hackers that are basically only there for their handicap, seems the right combination.

Other scrambles I've been in are Opens, ones we've generally played throughout the years. Obviously pick your own team there. Most teams are probably 4 men, although at one particular course a handful of teams also have a couple of female golfers. Those teams have won every time. Not just has the team handicap been so much higher, at this course ladies tees on quite a few holes are 80 to 100 yards further forward.

I'd love to know what research was done into Texas Scramble handicaps, purely out of interest. How did they truly take into account the make up of a team in terms of handicap and mixed teams, and how many records did they have? How did they account for minimum number of drives? If there are separate tees, how did they account for the significant difference in yardage between them. Sure, course ratings account for this. But, as far as I am aware, a course rating for ladies assume they hit all the shots. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't account for a lady hitting the drive, and then a male hitting the second shot.

 

[AussieKB]

So true, one course I play it is a par 4 for the men and a par 3 the women on one hole, a good drive by a man gets to level with the women's tee, hence if you have a lady in your group all the guys just walk over to it and watch her drive, no matter where it goes you take it, plus it counts as one of her drives.

Bottom line Scramble equals best cheats on the day, I only play in them to have a few drinks and a laugh with my mates.