Alterations to WHS?

[wjemather]

One of the mandatory requirements for clubs/handicap committees was to ‘display course handicap tables’ it was advised by EG that this was best done near the first tee, hence the purchase of boards by nearly every club.
The size of Genu9’s table per tee (48 lines and 5 columns) is only a little larger than the existing tables per tee (37 lines and 4 columns), as found on the WHS portal, which clubs must display and would only require a small font reduction to fit into existing boards. Far better than the confusion that will certainly arise if clubs choose to replace the existing boards with just a rounded 100% calculatio.

A printed sheet of paper would suffice; no obligation whatsoever to purchase boards which have a limited lifecycle (due to re-rating, never mind potential rule changes). Our club only bought one for appearances (the laminated sheets posted on the on-course, pro shop and clubhouse noticeboards were more than sufficient) knowing it would be redundant in less that 2 years due to re-rating.

As I thought - you need to multiply that by number of tees and genders (at least 3, probably more, especially as tees get rated for multiple genders). So you're looking at 4x the size at a minimum, but probably more likely at least 6x the size.

There's nothing like a massive sea of numbers if you want to confuse people.

 

[clubchamp98]

The recreational activity here is playing golf, not calculating handicaps.

Making things far more complicated than they actually are is unhelpful, however much enjoyment you get from it.

If this is true , Why change the handicap system in the first place?

 

[wjemather]

If this is true , Why change the handicap system in the first place?

We've been though all this.

Improved accuracy, equity, responsiveness; global portability; etc., etc. Also, with WHS, there is nothing complicated (like self adjustment) for the golfer to do.

 

[D-S]

As I thought - you need to multiply that by number of tees and genders (at least 3, probably more, especially as tees get rated for multiple genders). So you're looking at 4x the size at a minimum, but probably more likely at least 6x the size.

This is exactly the same as you have today, one table per tee per gender - so no, not 4x the size or 6x the size.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Thing is. I still spend half my time before I tee off, especially when about to play a little 4BBB match, standing up for WHS, batting away naysayers who complain about its complexity - all these different %s and calculations etc - by asking for the CH of each player and for each literally in seconds telling them how many shots they get off the lowest guy (in my usual rollup that’s usually me).

I do this using simple mental arithmetic - no time wasted faffing about with a calculator or looking online or wherever, and I then say to the naysayers ‘now how difficult was that…?’. My post reopening this discussion was simply that I fear I have now lost the simple tool I had to rebut the moaners.

 

[wjemather]

This is exactly the same as you have today, one table per tee per gender - so no, not 4x the size or 6x the size.

1 column (CH) per tee/gender combination vs. 4 columns (100%, 95%, 90%, 85%) per tee/gender combination. And even more columns are needed to cover all allowances.

 

[D-S]

1 column (CH) per tee/gender combination vs. 4 columns (100%, 95%, 90%, 85%) per tee/gender combination. And even more columns are needed to cover all allowances.

See post 473

 

[clubchamp98]

We've been though all this.

Improved accuracy, equity, responsiveness; global portability; etc., etc. Also, with WHS, there is nothing complicated (like self adjustment) for the golfer to do.

So not true then ,Just asking!

 

[Genu9]

1 column (CH) per tee/gender combination vs. 4 columns (100%, 95%, 90%, 85%) per tee/gender combination. And even more columns are needed to cover all allowances.

Full mock-up of tables. Had a local Printer do it on paper for me while we played around with readability vs size. Final version measures 447mm wide by 454mm high.

To cover ALL allowances 75% & 70% would need to be added but as they are so rarely used it doesn't seem justified.

There are obvioulsy going to be clubs with more than three tees which will require a larger board.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I like that chart, makes sense, easy to read once you know what you’re looking for and, for my club, with 4 tees for men and two for women i think you could fit them on existing boards.
Why on earth EG are proposing ‘rounded’ boards which will lead to frequent confusion is beyond me.
You could make some money offering this solution to clubs.
Eagle are touting for business selling their boards etc. with a £100 voucher funded by EG, one option is a QR code linked to a calculator which not only has a high upfront cost but also a £10 per month subscription to the service.
Your solution is simpler and very user friendly.

This is exactly what happened in Scotland, we all bought these boards, chaos ensued as folks didn't understand how their playing handicap wasn't what was shown on the boards, and in fairness we'd not been aware either. Total waste of money as most golf is medal play so exact playing handicap was the important one to know.

 

[AussieKB]

WHS working well out here, over 10 years.....and still crazy scores, 49 points won and he lost 2 shots....47 points second, mate off 5 said he is never going back to play at that course.

 

[wjemather]

WHS working well out here, over 10 years.....and still crazy scores, 49 points won and he lost 2 shots....47 points second, mate off 5 said he is never going back to play at that course.

Yeah. It may be very (very, very) similar what you had before but you've still only had WHS since 2020.

 

[AussieKB]

Yeah. It may be very (very, very) similar what you had before but you've still only had WHS since 2020.

US slope ratings were introduced in 2014 in OZ, which changed handicaps........and has been changed numerous times till what we have today, I mentioned it to a English Golf Official over 5 years ago and he would not believe me of the system, I was able to show him my handicap on the computer and he still did not believe the R&A would accept this.

You have been lucky enough to start your WHS with all the tweaks we have made.

When we first started, it was best 10 out of 20 cards, no limit on how far your handicap to go out.

 

[wjemather]

US slope ratings were introduced in 2014 in OZ, which changed handicaps........and has been changed numerous times till what we have today, I mentioned it to a English Golf Official over 5 years ago and he would not believe me of the system, I was able to show him my handicap on the computer and he still did not believe the R&A would accept this.

You have been lucky enough to start your WHS with all the tweaks we have made.

When we first started, it was best 10 out of 20 cards, no limit on how far your handicap to go out.

Australia adopted the USGA handicap system, and amended it. It wasn't WHS.

WHS is largely based on the Australian adaptation of the USGA system, but there are many differences - even though Golf Australia have customised their adoption of WHS so it looks just ike the previous system, or a minor update if it.

 

[Genu9]

This is exactly what happened in Scotland, we all bought these boards, chaos ensued as folks didn't understand how their playing handicap wasn't what was shown on the boards, and in fairness we'd not been aware either. Total waste of money as most golf is medal play so exact playing handicap was the important one to know.

Understand the confusion if your boards are 'Rounded'. Best illustrated in the two tables below.

Players on 10.3 - 10.6 @ 95% (right hand table) are going to 'gain' a stroke by using the 'unrounded' figure x 95%. (so they'll be happy). However,
inversely Players on 8.0 - 8.3 @ 95% (left hand table) will 'lose' a stroke by using the 'unrounded' figure x 95%, (they're not going to be happy).
But if they look at a board that has 'Rounded' figures and multiply by 95% they'll get a different figure.

Why would they put up a board that doesn't represent what is right if they have always used 'unrounded' CH to get PH?

If this is repeated in the rest of GB&I in April it's going to be fun, to say the least.

Off to the Air Raid Shelter now..........

 

[clubchamp98]

Understand the confusion if your boards are 'Rounded'. Best illustrated in the two tables below.

Players on 10.3 - 10.6 @ 95% (right hand table) are going to 'gain' a stroke by using the 'unrounded' figure x 95%. (so they'll be happy). However,
inversely Players on 8.0 - 8.3 @ 95% (left hand table) will 'lose' a stroke by using the 'unrounded' figure x 95%, (they're not going to be happy).
But if they look at a board that has 'Rounded' figures and multiply by 95% they'll get a different figure.

Why would they put up a board that doesn't represent what is right if they have always used 'unrounded' CH to get PH?

If this is repeated in the rest of GB&I in April it's going to be fun, to say the least.

Off to the Air Raid Shelter now..........

View attachment 51437

Yes and this was supposed to make things better for all us golfers who are always playing all over the world.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Understand the confusion if your boards are 'Rounded'. Best illustrated in the two tables below.

Players on 10.3 - 10.6 @ 95% (right hand table) are going to 'gain' a stroke by using the 'unrounded' figure x 95%. (so they'll be happy). However,
inversely Players on 8.0 - 8.3 @ 95% (left hand table) will 'lose' a stroke by using the 'unrounded' figure x 95%, (they're not going to be happy).
But if they look at a board that has 'Rounded' figures and multiply by 95% they'll get a different figure.

Why would they put up a board that doesn't represent what is right if they have always used 'unrounded' CH to get PH?

If this is repeated in the rest of GB&I in April it's going to be fun, to say the least.

Off to the Air Raid Shelter now..........

View attachment 51437

"we" put up the boards recommended by SG, every club I've come across has done exactly the same, they are fine for matchplay as that works, but useless for strokeplay which is where all the confusion lies. It was quickly evident on WHS launch that SG hadn't realised their mistake, and being new to this, clubs didn't either, especially as so much of the info out there was seeing English information where rounded was correct (SG were really bad at communicating the changes and that Scotland was going to be different)

I'm not sure about the end of that sentence, under UHS you had your exact, which you rounded and that was your playing handicap, no boards were needed, the rounding and 95% are only applicable since WHS came in 3 years ago.

 

[Genu9]

"we" put up the boards recommended by SG, every club I've come across has done exactly the same, they are fine for matchplay as that works, but useless for strokeplay which is where all the confusion lies. It was quickly evident on WHS launch that SG hadn't realised their mistake, and being new to this, clubs didn't either, especially as so much of the info out there was seeing English information where rounded was correct (SG were really bad at communicating the changes and that Scotland was going to be different)

I'm not sure about the end of that sentence, under UHS you had your exact, which you rounded and that was your playing handicap, no boards were needed, the rounding and 95% are only applicable since WHS came in 3 years ago.

From reading the document issued by Scottish Golf on the "2024 World Handicap System Update" Section 4, I understood that in Scotland, unlike the rest of GB&I, you already used the 'unrounded' handicap to calculate 'Playing Handicap'. (see extract) That is why I counldn't understand why you would have Boards using 'rounded' handicaps, but you've clarified that in your response.

Their statement is a little ambiguous, what do they mean by 'full Course Handicap' ? I'd assume it means 'unrounded', others may disagree!

All will become clear on 1st April (which coincidentally is Easter Monday, so not many people playing golf.)

Off to clear more snow.............No Golf for the rest of this week.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I think "full course handicap" could mean the unrounded.

As in 13.2758137 is a full course handicap.

And 13 is not the full course handicap.

Maybe.

 

[wjemather]

From reading the document issued by Scottish Golf on the "2024 World Handicap System Update" Section 4, I understood that in Scotland, unlike the rest of GB&I, you already used the 'unrounded' handicap to calculate 'Playing Handicap'. (see extract) That is why I counldn't understand why you would have Boards using 'rounded' handicaps, but you've clarified that in your response.

Their statement is a little ambiguous, what do they mean by 'full Course Handicap' ? I'd assume it means 'unrounded', others may disagree!

All will become clear on 1st April (which coincidentally is Easter Monday, so not many people playing golf.)

Off to clear more snow.............No Golf for the rest of this week.

View attachment 51459

I see no ambiguity there. It clearly states "...full Course Handicap maintained to machine precision".