Alterations to WHS?

[wjemather]

The stock official answer you will get is that if it’s not calculated through ‘machine precision’ you can use rounded course handicaps and the fact that some players will get a different amount of shots than if ‘machine precision‘ is used well ’that’s life’.
They don’t say what happens if someone has a handicap calculator and someone else does the maths from a rounded course handicap board and they both have different results who is right?
Also if you quiz EG about this basically they say if it is not in a comp, it is social golf and they don’t care what allowances people use or how they calculate it.
They (EG) seem to have admitted that unrounded course handicaps are a bit of a nightmare in 4BB matchplay, so they have changed the way shots are calculated - they have not made the same admission for 4BB strokeplay, team games etc. etc.
I assume there are a lot of questions at their seminars but these will not reach, I assume, even the majority of clubs in England so I would like to think there is some really good publicity information that is in plain Englis and will be readily understandable for a lot of golfers as clubs are going to be having to send it out in the next few weeks as April 1st is not long away.

The guidance is that unrounded CH may be used when calculations using machine precision are not possible. In this case they are, so should be used.

With respect to matchplay allowances, I got the impression last year that EG were expecting (hoping) ISVs to provide functionality in their apps for PH calculations using machine precision. To me this is pie in the sky stuff - not that it can't be done, it's that (at least some) ISVs won't (I'll be surprised if they even have some necessary changes, e.g. 4bbb, ready for April). Also, EG will have heard from players, who want matchplay calculations to be simple and easily done on the tee.

 

[Genu9]

Really?

You must have seen them! They're the one's stood in front of the board with a glazed look and scratching their head?

 

[doublebogey7]

The stock official answer you will get is that if it’s not calculated through ‘machine precision’ you can use rounded course handicaps and the fact that some players will get a different amount of shots than if ‘machine precision‘ is used well ’that’s life’.
They don’t say what happens if someone has a handicap calculator and someone else does the maths from a rounded course handicap board and they both have different results who is right?
Also if you quiz EG about this basically they say if it is not in a comp, it is social golf and they don’t care what allowances people use or how they calculate it.
They (EG) seem to have admitted that unrounded course handicaps are a bit of a nightmare in 4BB matchplay, so they have changed the way shots are calculated - they have not made the same admission for 4BB strokeplay, team games etc. etc.
I assume there are a lot of questions at their seminars but these will not reach, I assume, even the majority of clubs in England so I would like to think there is some really good publicity information that is in plain Englis and will be readily understandable for a lot of golfers as clubs are going to be having to send it out in the next few weeks as April 1st is not long away.

I would expect committees to include in their terms of competition how such calculations must be made. I assume by "machine precision" EG are referring to calculations performed by the ISV's.

 

[wjemather]

I would expect committees to include in their terms of competition how such calculations must be made. I assume by "machine precision" EG are referring to calculations performed by the ISV's.

ISVs, apps, spreadsheets, pre-prepared PH tables, etc.

 

[tobybarker]

ISVs, apps, spreadsheets, pre-prepared PH tables, etc.

you wont find a PH table, surely.....if its a percentage of a decimal number

 

[wjemather]

you wont find a PH table, surely.....if its a percentage of a decimal number

PH tables display the integer values that are required for play - they are similar to the standard CH tables and are available to download from the WHS platform.

 

[tobybarker]

PH tables display the integer values that are required for play - they are similar to the standard CH tables and are available to download from the WHS platform.

I thought CH will now be a decimal, so looking up 85% of 12.31 or whatever wont be done on a table on the wall, surely....I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this!

 

[Voyager EMH]

Went on a captain's away day last May. Teams of 4 drawn at random, best 2 from 4 AmAm.
85% was ignored, because "its just a fun day."

At my club 95% has never been used in roll-ups.
All they have ever done is apply slope rating.

So from April, Yellow tee roll-ups, Par 70, CR 69.1, SR 127.

Apply slope rating as before, then

"Right lads, shall we take 0.9 off everyone?"
"Nah, what's the point?"
"What about the 95%?"
"Yeah, we've never done that so why start now?"

Slope Rating only - ignore the rest - off we go. No change.

This is the golfing world in which I exist.

 

[tobybarker]

Went on a captain's away day last May. Teams of 4 drawn at random, best 2 from 4 AmAm.
85% was ignored, because "its just a fun day."

At my club 95% has never been used in roll-ups.
All they have ever done is apply slope rating.

So from April, Yellow tee roll-ups, Par 70, CR 69.1, SR 127.

Apply slope rating as before, then

"Right lads, shall we take 0.9 off everyone?"
"Nah, what's the point?"
"What about the 95%?"
"Yeah, we've never done that so why start now?"

Slope Rating only - ignore the rest - off we go. No change.

This is the golfing world in which I exist.

Fair enough - why not ignore handicaps completely, or invent your own? The point is, these numbers have been come up with (by boffins somewhere) and they purport to mean something.

 

[wjemather]

I thought CH will now be a decimal, so looking up 85% of 12.31 or whatever wont be done on a table on the wall, surely....I'm sure I'm misunderstanding this!

CH remains an integer for handicapping purposes.

An 85% PH table is available for download - the table only displays the PHs for each range of HIs:

Until April 1st:

From April 1st:

 

[Genu9]

you wont find a PH table, surely.....if its a percentage of a decimal number

You mean something like this......

 

[Backsticks]

Fair enough - why not ignore handicaps completely, or invent your own?.

Thats what many are doing in effect. Just playing off the HI. So a system of their own. Maybe with slope. Maybe even not that. But a better system as a result. The computations in WHS are just too complex to bother with if not being handled by a computer for a club competition. It just isnt worth the bother.

Discussions such as this thread already have the most interested, and likely most informed, fraction of a percent of the wider amateur golfing population - and even they are still disputing, discussing, trying to understand, and spotting anomalies and imperfections. The other 99.9% arent even interested in trying to get to grips with it, and quite rightly. This is a design flaw in WHS either entirely, or as implemented here, I dont know. Whatever the mathematics behind it, there is a point at which complexity becomes counter productive. And we have well passed it.

Furthermore, I think people are not seeing the wood for the tenths of a decimal point. Handicaps are imperfect. They are a rough indicator of someone's golfing level. Even relatively stable golfers wander up or down a stroke, with no real change in their form. Many vary routinely by a wider amount. The foundation is too shaky to be concerned about decimal places, when to round, whether computations are done to a machine precision or a ready reckoner table. Its pointless.

Hence, while when compliance with the system is obligatory as in club competitions, and probably handled by a PC anyway, we can comply. But in matchplay, rollups, and all manner of friendly games, it is just a nuisance. And simply using the HI is close enough to go hit the ball, enjoy your game and competition to see who buys the the drinks afterwords.

 

[tobybarker]

You mean something like this......

View attachment 51627

To quote from the guidance:

Where software is being used for competitions, the Playing Handicap will becalculated based on the full Course Handicap This means the Course Handicap will not be rounded to the nearest whole number before being converted into a Playing Handicap).

So we have a situation where, of the comp is doing the heavy lifting, you might get a different PH than if the players in the rollup/swindle/sunday medal are doing it themselves

 

[Genu9]

To quote from the guidance:

Where software is being used for competitions, the Playing Handicap will becalculated based on the full Course Handicap This means the Course Handicap will not be rounded to the nearest whole number before being converted into a Playing Handicap).

So we have a situation where, of the comp is doing the heavy lifting, you might get a different PH than if the players in the rollup/swindle/sunday medal are doing it themselves

All of the percentage listing are based on using the 'unrounded' CH so are correct PH.

By using 'unrounded' figures you effectively have 541 possible CH's from 0 thru 54, more if you go down to plus Hi's. This listing condesence them into a much smaller and more readable table, somewhere between 60-65 lines if including down to minus 4.

 

[doublebogey7]

ISVs, apps, spreadsheets, pre-prepared PH tables, etc.

Maybe, but I doubt that we're thinking about players who carry a Casio

 

[AussieKB]

Where is when you need him ?

 

[Plus4]

CH remains an integer for handicapping purposes.

An 85% PH table is available for download - the table only displays the PHs for each range of HIs:

Until April 1st: View attachment 51625

From April 1st: View attachment 51626

Both these tables are using machine precision to produce the HI ranges. The availability of tables like these (95%,90%,85%....) at clubs for members to easily access would be extremely useful.
I know 100% tables can be easily be generated on ncrdb.usga.org but please may I ask what route is needed for percentage tables? Thanks

 

[Swango1980]

WHS is apparently much simpler for everyone. Machine precision, tables available for download, etc.

I'd agree that WHS may be a lot simpler if we could all plug ourselves into the Matrix, download information directly to our heads and be done with it

However, many golfers still can't use a smart phone (or use it quickly), let alone plug themselves into the Matrix.

I still think the whole "Playing Handicap" thing has made things stupidly more complicated that WHS ever needed to be. Just embed the blooming 95% into the Course Hcp calc and be done with it.

 

[Plus4]

The 90% table would've been particularly useful if only the 4bbb match-play format hadn't been singled out to now use 90% of the difference (from 1st April) - the only format to retain inaccuracies due to forced double rounding. % of differences has not been in use since 2020 when WHS came in and it now seems contrary to Appendix C in The Rules of Handicapping:
"In general, after handicap allowances have been applied in match play formats, the player with the lowest Playing Handicap plays off zero strokes relative to the other player(s). The other player(s) receive(s) the difference between their own Playing Handicap and that of the player with the lowest Playing Handicap" - (and 6.2a).
This seems strange but I believe there may be another thread on this topic?

 

[Voyager EMH]

WHS is apparently much simpler for everyone. Machine precision, tables available for download, etc.

I'd agree that WHS may be a lot simpler if we could all plug ourselves into the Matrix, download information directly to our heads and be done with it

However, many golfers still can't use a smart phone (or use it quickly), let alone plug themselves into the Matrix.

I still think the whole "Playing Handicap" thing has made things stupidly more complicated that WHS ever needed to be. Just embed the blooming 95% into the Course Hcp calc and be done with it.

England Golf missed the trick with this one. It seems to work in Australia.

We still have two playing handicaps.
One for when handicaps are assessed with a nett double bogey limit and another one that is 95% of that one for scoring stableford points and nett scores.
While this continues there will always be confusion with many scoring stableford points without applying 95% and thus perpetuating the misguided notion of "losing shots".

Put the 95% in so that is unavoidable. Agree.
And please outlaw the phrases, "losing a shot" and "losing shots".