Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
The other week..CVG shot 39 points off the whites ( par 71, CR 71.2) which is enough to win a Stableford around here and his index went up.....
And this is a guy who , generally, puts 3 cards in most weeks...
Alterations to WHS?
- Thread starter Captain_Black.
- Start date
And this is a guy who , generally, puts 3 cards in most weeks...
rosecott
Money List Winner
Where's the missing information? What was the differential of the 20th score which was disappearing - and the other 7 counting scores?
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
I play off six.What is the argument here? Are you suggesting a handicap system should have a "local knowledge factor" or a tick box to declare if an individual golfer has experience playing out of "Bermuda Grass"? What next, should handicaps take into account the amount of sleep golfers have on average each night, jet lag, alcohol intake, etc?
I am in the USA on a golf holiday.
If I put all my cards in about 18 rounds belive me I would be off whatever the max shots you can get back ( is it 5 ?)as I am really struggling with this grass.
Now being off several shots better in only two weeks just dosnt seem right And questions would be asked.
The sweep will be interesting when I get home with me off 11 from 6 in two weeks !
So being on holiday for two weeks can really mess up my handicap index.
They should take into account that no system can be worldwide but they put it in place anyway.
I don’t drink!
Last edited:
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Yes mate of mine went up after winning because a good score 6 months ago was dropping off .
How is that representative of current form ?
AussieKB
Well-known member
Like I have said before I have seen the winner go out on numerous occasions here in OZ by as much as 1.1
how does that equate to current form ?
how does that equate to current form ?
Swango1980
Well-known member
Because, if handicap is based on current form, you can't just forget about the 19 scores that preceded his winning score. And, he was probably on better form about 21 rounds ago, when he shot an even better score than his winning score. Now that round is lost, and replaced with a much more up to date round.
And, if his winning score is a sign that he is hitting good form, and not just an isolated good round, that will soon be reflected as he puts in a few more scores.
When I'm in a position where I'm about to lose a few good scores, I know my handicap will jump rapidly as I was in better form back then. So, to try and at least maintain handicap, I know I need to see if I can find similar form. If I then post a decent score, even if I lose a much better one, I'm still happy I've limited the increase to handicap.
Swango1980
Well-known member
If I played 18 rounds in 2 weeks, regardless of the course, I wouldn't be expecting good scores. Fatigue, jet lag, unfamiliar courses, etc.
Perhaps WHS needs to account for golfers that are over keen and play too much golf compared to their average rate of play
It just cant allow for such outliers. If someone, even a competant golfer from the states who had never played links courses came to Scotland and played 20 links rounds, their handicap would surely rise. Then they go home and its 'too high'. So what. It will settle back down when they play there again.
Last edited:
D-S
Well-known member
Don’t forget, in handicap terms, you have to play in accordance with the rules of the jurisdiction that you are playing in.
So, therefore you should/ are strongly encouraged to put in a card from every round you play unless they are practice rounds or not played to the rules of golf. As you are in the USA this includes all strokeplay (team or individual) and all matchplay rounds - scrambles are not included as they do not conform to the rules of golf.
Can I suggest you look up the rules on ‘most likely score‘ as you will need them for unfinished holes in team and matchplay holes.
rulefan
Tour Winner
6 months ago is hardly current.
rulefan
Tour Winner
How old was the score that presumably was dropped off?
wjemather
Well-known member
Competition results are utterly irrelevant. Comps can be won with >40 points or with <30 points, so don't give any clues whatsoever about scoring ability.
Also, your implication is that the 21st score is more indicative of current form than the 20 more recent scores that followed it - obviously that will never be the case.
Alan Clifford
Well-known member
It's the result of a system that does an average on a limited number of scores. I should have thought that it would not have been beyond the wit of the world beating statisticians to devise a system where the influence of scores gradually diminished rather that abruptly being disappeared. But I suspect they weren't asked. But I repeat myself, boring boring
Alan Clifford
Well-known member
Just submit the cards. That's the system. If you don't you are manipulating the system. Well, maybe not in the England Golf World Handicap Subsystem but you should do it anyway to support the WHS concept.
Alan Clifford
Well-known member
That's an interesting point. I've never thought about that aspect of playing to the rules of the jurisdiction because I've always submitted my South African scores back to England. And I bet the England Golf World Handicap Subsystem Johnies haven't thought about it either.
There would be no gain. Scores are not evenly distributed in time. For one person the 20th score was three months ago. For another, three years ago.It's the result of a system that does an average on a limited number of scores. I should have thought that it would not have been beyond the wit of the world beating statisticians to devise a system where the influence of scores gradually diminished rather that abruptly being disappeared. But I suspect they weren't asked. But I repeat myself, boring boring
The would beating statisticians would have integrated such a feature were it beneficial.
D-S
Well-known member
They have and in response to my query on it they said “…….mmm, interesting point - not sure what the answer is.”
Alan Clifford
Well-known member
Exactly. You degrade scores over both time and number. Or maybe just over time. The system needs to forget the irrelevant 20th, it's a red herring.
The world beating statisticians would have considered the red herringness only if they were asked to do so.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Yes I see that but my main point is it’s possible.If I played 18 rounds in 2 weeks, regardless of the course, I wouldn't be expecting good scores. Fatigue, jet lag, unfamiliar courses, etc.
Perhaps WHS needs to account for golfers that are over keen and play too much golf compared to their average rate of play
maybe there needs to be a limit put on GP cards put in a calendar month.
No jet lag but I’m knackered!
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Exactly my point.
That card six months ago was one of his eight so determining his index.
