Alterations to WHS?

[wjemather]

Stableford is played here as well.
Do they play stableford differently in Australia? I think not.
Do they play medal strokeplay differently? I think not.
Yes, they had a system with similarities before this current system, but the differences between their calculations and ours is due to different decisions being made by different people and at different times and in different countries.
Hitting the ball around the course and counting the shots is the same in all countries.

As stated earlier, Stableford is overwhelmingly the dominant scoring format in Australia. Not so here.

 

[D-S]

I'm playing Stableford tomorrow to celebrate Invasion Day, and Stroke on Saturday for our Monthly Mug, every Club here has one a month, and I know you will be surprised but the Club Champs is a Stroke event.......horror, plus a lot of other Opens.

What’s Invasion Day? Seems an odd event to celebrate?

 

[wjemather]

To go back to the initial thread topic which I believe was about the upcoming changes to WHS in GB&I in April.
Do we know why (has their been an explanation) of why we are going to go to the Australian method of accounting for ‘unscored‘ holes in 4BB which comprises of adding specific Stableford scores such as 1.5 shots dependent on the partners score?
There has just been the introduction of a new, fairer method of scaling up expected scores for unplayed holes so why not use that? Or, (I would dislike this) why didn’t they introduce MLS which is a defined key component of calculating unplayed or partially unplayed scores around a lot of the rest of the world?
Is there a stated rationale behind picking a sort of 3rd different method of assessing as score for an ‘uncompleted’ hole?

The alternative to the Australian method is MLS - there is little appetite for that in GB&I (yet).

Expected scores are for unplayed holes - in the case of 4BBB, the holes have been played.

One issue with using expected scores would be for when the counting hole score is 1pt. With the chosen method, the non-counting player gets 1pt; the expected score would be more than that but there is no way the player could have scored more than 1pt.

 

[AussieKB]

What’s Invasion Day? Seems an odd event to celebrate?

Sorry I meant to say Australian Day......when Captain Cook landed in Botany Bay.

 

[D-S]

The alternative to the Australian method is MLS - there is little appetite for that in GB&I (yet).

Expected scores are for unplayed holes - in the case of 4BBB, the holes have been played.

One issue with using expected scores would be for when the counting hole score is 1pt. With the chosen method, the non-counting player gets 1pt; the expected score would be more than that but there is no way the player could have scored more than 1pt.

I understand your rationale but have we heard a reasoning from EG themselves?

 

[wjemather]

I understand your rationale but have we heard a reasoning from EG themselves?

The first two statements are what they have said.

 

[doublebogey7]

The alternative to the Australian method is MLS - there is little appetite for that in GB&I (yet).

Expected scores are for unplayed holes - in the case of 4BBB, the holes have been played.

One issue with using expected scores would be for when the counting hole score is 1pt. With the chosen method, the non-counting player gets 1pt; the expected score would be more than that but there is no way the player could have scored more than 1pt.

I think you are correct here, as evidenced by the push back whenever this has been discussed on here, but I am less than convinced that their won't be similar pushback when the full implications of expected score are seen.

 

[D-S]

I think you are correct here, as evidenced by the push back whenever this has been discussed on here, but I am less than convinced that their won't be similar pushback when the full implications of expected score are seen.

Do you mean expected score in unplayed holes or 4BB?

 

[wjemather]

I think you are correct here, as evidenced by the push back whenever this has been discussed on here, but I am less than convinced that their won't be similar pushback when the full implications of expected score are seen.

I can foresee issues with the resultant 9-hole (or 18-hole with more than a couple of legitimately unplayed holes) score differentials causing HIs to be even slower in adjusting to improved ability than they are now.
I'm not sure any problems will be noticed by the average player though, unless/until someone starts dominating 9-hole comps.

 

[D-S]

I can foresee issues with the resultant 9-hole (or 18-hole with more than a couple of legitimately unplayed holes) score differentials causing HIs to be even slower in adjusting to improved ability than they are now.
I'm not sure any problems will be noticed by the average player though, unless/until someone starts dominating 9-hole comps.

So do you expect the score differentials, for example for 9 hole scores, to be relatively higher under the new system than the previous one? Across the whole range of HIs or progressively relatively higher as the HI gets higher?

 

[AussieKB]

I love how you can play a 9 hole comp at one course and then a month later play another 9 hole comp at a different course and they marry them together.....bloody bonkers IMO, being go on here in OZ for years now.

 

[wjemather]

So do you expect the score differentials, for example for 9 hole scores, to be relatively higher under the new system than the previous one? Across the whole range of HIs or progressively relatively higher as the HI gets higher?

Yes. Given average scoring for most players is about 1.5 over handicap for 9-holes, I expect the expected score differential to be higher than that produced by the current 17 Stableford points (1 over handicap).

 

[wjemather]

I love how you can play a 9 hole comp at one course and then a month later play another 9 hole comp at a different course and they marry them together.....bloody bonkers IMO, being go on here in OZ for years now.

One of the 2024 changes eliminates combining 9-hole scores after the initial 54 holes.
I've read nothing from GA about adopting the 2024 changes though, so can only assume they're not doing anything (yet).

 

[doublebogey7]

Do you mean expected score in unplayed holes or 4BB?

4 Ball

 

[wjemather]

If anyone is keeping track of these additional changes, it would appear that the allowances have also been updated for foursomes matchplay, with the Playing Handicap becoming 100% and strokes received being 50% of the difference between team Playing Handicaps. Unrounded CHs are being used.
This change is evident in the latest mixed tee calculator spreadsheet from EG (v 1.17) but is not yet reflected in the guidance, which apparently will be updated (again) soon.

 

[Voyager EMH]

As stated earlier, Stableford is overwhelmingly the dominant scoring format in Australia. Not so here.

That is not the reason for the different playing handicap calculation nor the different score differential calculation.
The reason for those differences is that different decisions were made by different people.

England decided to round course handicap. Scotland decided to have unrounded course handicap.
There was not a different way of playing golf - it was a different decision by a different group of people.

GB&I decided not to have CR-Par.
GB&I have made another decision to have CR-Par.
There has not been a change in the way golf is being played here that has prompted this.
It is a different or change of decision.

 

[2blue]

Golf is not played the same around the world. For example, GB&I is very competition oriented (mostly individual medals & Stablefords); Australia is almost entirely Stableford; the US is mostly casual; etc. An inflexible system would not account for these differences.

As we have seen/read/heard from many ordinary golfers, there would be fierce resistance if GB&I were to propose mandating all casual play scores were submitted for handicapping and we adopted MLS so that all match play and best-ball scores also counted. Similarly, in the US would collapse if only individual strokeplay competition scores were acceptable.

The only thing that really matters is that the resultant HI is portable, which it is.

ABSOLUTELY this ^^^^^....... & it's made a considerable contribution towards players from our Club being able to compete with those who gained their H/caps on tougher tracks!!

 

[wjemather]

That is not the reason for the different playing handicap calculation nor the different score differential calculation.
The reason for those differences is that different decisions were made by different people.

England decided to round course handicap. Scotland decided to have unrounded course handicap.
There was not a different way of playing golf - it was a different decision by a different group of people.

GB&I decided not to have CR-Par.
GB&I have made another decision to have CR-Par.
There has not been a change in the way golf is being played here that has prompted this.
It is a different or change of decision.

They weren't arbitrary decisions. They were based on how people play golf - their familiarity with the existing handicap system, (the perception of) how easy transition would be, willingness to accept change, etc. These were all factors taken into account when selecting the various options.

The decision not to adopt CR-Par has been acknowledged as a mistake, based on the faulty assumption that players generally understood that par wasn't the benchmark for handicapping. They don't.
Good 4BBB scores are becoming acceptable due to demand from clubs.
Unrounded PH calculations are being adopted due to how it's worked in Scotland (and elsewhere) and the prevalence of software (apps, etc.).
Matchplay calculations are changing to make it easy for quick mental calculations on the tee.
There remains a general feeling in GB&I against options like MLS (needed for matchplay & full 4BBB), counting every GP round, etc. so these have not been adopted.

All decisions were based on how we play golf.

 

[fenwayrich]

If anyone is keeping track of these additional changes, it would appear that the allowances have also been updated for foursomes matchplay, with the Playing Handicap becoming 100% and strokes received being 50% of the difference between team Playing Handicaps. Unrounded CHs are being used.
This change is evident in the latest mixed tee calculator spreadsheet from EG (v 1.17) but is not yet reflected in the guidance, which apparently will be updated (again) soon.

i went to a seminar on Monday when they advised that Version 1.16 had been added last week to take account of the change in the fourball matchplay allowance calculation. Three days later, another version to download! I assume that by 1st April everything will be set in stone, but it's going down to the wire.

 

[Voyager EMH]

They weren't arbitrary decisions. They were based on how people play golf - their familiarity with the existing handicap system, (the perception of) how easy transition would be, willingness to accept change, etc. These were all factors taken into account when selecting the various options.

The decision not to adopt CR-Par has been acknowledged as a mistake, based on the faulty assumption that players generally understood that par wasn't the benchmark for handicapping. They don't.
Good 4BBB scores are becoming acceptable due to demand from clubs.
Unrounded PH calculations are being adopted due to how it's worked in Scotland (and elsewhere) and the prevalence of software (apps, etc.).
Matchplay calculations are changing to make it easy for quick mental calculations on the tee.
There remains a general feeling in GB&I against options like MLS (needed for matchplay & full 4BBB), counting every GP round, etc. so these have not been adopted.

All decisions were based on how we play golf.

CR-Par or not CR-Par is not about how we play golf.
We will be playing golf the same, whichever is decided.

They same goes for all the other changes of decision.
They have been done in attempt to cater for how people perceive WHS. Nothing to do with how we play golf.
These perceptions may change as people continue to adapt their thinking to WHS.
With changes of perception, more changes of decision may occur.
But we will continue to play golf the same.