Alterations to WHS?

[wjemather]

Because the notion of "playing to handicap" is interpretable and not a globally fixed concept.

I view playing to handicap as being the Score Differential that is closest to Handicap Index.
This will not change with CR-Par or unrounded Course Handicap.

Sometimes my HI could be halfway between two potential Score Differentials.
Half a shot above or half a shot below handicap.
After CR-Par is introduced, this could be 35 or 36 points, or it could be 36 or 37 points.
That is why I have not considered stableford points scored as a good or reliable indicator of playing to handicap. Score Differential is a better indicator.

(Whether you like it or not, or choose to pretend it's something else) by definition everyone's play-to-handicap score will always be 36 points with reference to Course Handicap.

But for scores handed in for handicap, it is.

All scores for handicapping are adjusted with reference to Course Handicap, with no allowances.

 

[wjemather]

This is the key. In practice, most golf for the vast majority of people is not individual strokeplay competition golf.

If most people don't play individual strokeplay golf most of the time, I guess that severely limits what scores they can submit for handicap in the UK?

It is a pity we have a handicap system that says acceptable scores can only be submitted for formats most people don't even play?

I think you missed the key word: competition.
By which I mean formally organised competition by an affiliated organisation - i.e. the only ones for which 95% is mandatory.

 

[Voyager EMH]

(Whether you like it or not, or choose to pretend it's something else) by definition everyone's play-to-handicap score will always be 36 points with reference to Course Handicap.


All scores for handicapping are adjusted with reference to Course Handicap, with no allowances.

1. "Everyone's" is not correct, because it won't be my definition. And it matters not-a-jot whether you or I "like it" or not.

2. Not in Australia. They are adjusted by Stableford points scored with reference to 93% of course Handicap (Daily Handicap)

 

[wjemather]

1. "Everyone's" is not correct, because it won't be my definition. And it matters not-a-jot whether you or I "like it" or not.

You making up your own definitions doesn't change reality.

 

[Voyager EMH]

You making up your own definitions doesn't change reality.

Correct. Reality being that playing to handicap is a not a universally defined and accepted-by-everyone notion.

 

[wjemather]

Correct. Reality being that playing to handicap is a not a universally defined and accepted-by-everyone notion.

It's defined in the Rules of Handicapping.

 

[jim8flog]

I am some what amused by all the 'what has to be worked out'

There is no longer a requirement to record your handicap on your card

I have tried for years to get players just to ensure they record the correct gross on their card and let the PSI do the rest.

I do appreciate that visitors to a club and those playing match play will have a different requirement.

 

[Genu9]

They call 93%, or rather 0.93 as "The Multiplier".
So what we call a 95% allowance for individual strokeplay, they use a 0.93 multiplier for individual strokeplay. This is quite definitely not 100%.

They change the 0.93 multiplier to the appropriate other multiplier for the other formats.

The introduction of WHS was supposed to provide a "measure of a players demonstrated ability". Having established the "demonstrated ability", why then do they need to take 5% (or in Aussies case 7%) of it away in strokeplay?

Currently this has generally had no effect on the Playing Handicap of players with low handicaps. e.g. At England Golf, Woodhall Spa Bracken Course, players with an HCI of less than 8.6 don't lose any shots. At my club players with an HCI of 9.7 or less don't lose any shots.

So up untill now, the 95% Playing Handcap has only affected higher handicap players. That is about to change with the introduction of 'unrounded CH'! Using the same Course data, there will be 23 instances where players with an HCI between 0 - 8.2 at Woodhall Spa will lose shots, with a similar number at my club.

I wonder if this change will focus the attention of those affected on the need to have this reduction to a players "demonstrated ability"?

 

[wjemather]

The introduction of WHS was supposed to provide a "measure of a players demonstrated ability". Having established the "demonstrated ability", why then do they need to take 5% (or in Aussies case 7%) of it away in strokeplay?

Currently this has generally had no effect on the Playing Handicap of players with low handicaps. e.g. At England Golf, Woodhall Spa Bracken Course, players with an HCI of less than 8.6 don't lose any shots. At my club players with an HCI of 9.7 or less don't lose any shots.

So up untill now, the 95% Playing Handcap has only affected higher handicap players. That is about to change with the introduction of 'unrounded CH'! Using the same Course data, there will be 23 instances where players with an HCI between 0 - 8.2 at Woodhall Spa will lose shots, with a similar number at my club.

I wonder if this change will focus the attention of those affected on the need to have this reduction to a players "demonstrated ability"?

It accounts for the probability of great scores in medium-large fields with an expected distribution of handicaps.
The WHS recommendation is for the allowance to be 100% in small fields where this probability is negligible. However, for simplicity, CONGU made the standard allowances mandatory for all field sizes; likewise GA with their standard multiplier.

Also, golfers demonstrated ability is reflected in their Handicap Index, not their course or playing handicap.

 

[Voyager EMH]

The introduction of WHS was supposed to provide a "measure of a players demonstrated ability". Having established the "demonstrated ability", why then do they need to take 5% (or in Aussies case 7%) of it away in strokeplay?

Currently this has generally had no effect on the Playing Handicap of players with low handicaps. e.g. At England Golf, Woodhall Spa Bracken Course, players with an HCI of less than 8.6 don't lose any shots. At my club players with an HCI of 9.7 or less don't lose any shots.

So up untill now, the 95% Playing Handcap has only affected higher handicap players. That is about to change with the introduction of 'unrounded CH'! Using the same Course data, there will be 23 instances where players with an HCI between 0 - 8.2 at Woodhall Spa will lose shots, with a similar number at my club.

I wonder if this change will focus the attention of those affected on the need to have this reduction to a players "demonstrated ability"?

Very good point.

I viewed the rounded course handicap as a mistake as it distorted the handicap scale.

Slope rating expands or contracts the scale, but the relative differences between handicaps are maintained.
When we apply the 95% to unrounded CH, the integrity of the scale will be maintained in the same way.

However, I've never subscribed to any notion of "losing a shot".
I understand what people mean by this, but it is possible to remove this notion from one's thinking, if you consider the handicap scale as a whole and how it is affected by slope rating and allowances - it expands and it contracts.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I am some what amused by all the 'what has to be worked out'

There is no longer a requirement to record your handicap on your card

I have tried for years to get players just to ensure they record the correct gross on their card and let the PSI do the rest.

I do appreciate that visitors to a club and those playing match play will have a different requirement.

And the reason for that was because nobody knew what handicap you were supposed to use, and instead of admitting what a cluster.... it was, we now don;t even properly complete a scoreacrd

 

[Deleted member 29109]

And the reason for that was because nobody knew what handicap you were supposed to use, and instead of admitting what a cluster.... it was, we now don;t even properly complete a scoreacrd

Some of us don’t fill one in at all.

Oh the horror.

 

[Voyager EMH]

It's defined in the Rules of Handicapping.

Somebody made that one up, then put it in those rules.
That does not mean that anyone has to accept it as a one-and-only truth.
Score Differential Nearest To Handicap Index.
There you are - I just made one up.
Its not right or wrong, but it is as good a definition as anyone else's, even if they get theirs into wide publication.

 

[wjemather]

And the reason for that was because nobody knew what handicap you were supposed to use, and instead of admitting what a cluster.... it was, we now don;t even properly complete a scoreacrd

If that were true, one wonders why the rule wasn't changed years ago. Must have been a nightmare for all those poor golfers around the world using the old USGA, EGA and GA systems that also required the application of Slope to determine the correct handicap to put on a scorecard. Of course, in reality it was all very simple and very few people were remotely confused by it (and if they were, they just wrote all 3 down), and the rule was changed due to the prevalence of technology for managing comps and handicaps.

 

[Genu9]

It accounts for the probability of great scores in medium-large fields with an expected distribution of handicaps.
The WHS recommendation is for the allowance to be 100% in small fields where this probability is negligible. However, for simplicity, CONGU made the standard allowances mandatory for all field sizes; likewise GA with their standard multiplier.

Also, golfers demonstrated ability is reflected in their Handicap Index, not their course or playing handicap.

Yes the reccommendation in Appendix C/1 was for the allowance to be 100% in fields of 30 or less. Where's the second bit stated? Is this something outside of the RoH that CONGU issued?

As to the probability of great scores, using 95% seems to have been designed to only to penalise higher handicaps. However, as already pointed out, this is about to change so, C'est la vie. Let's get on with it.

 

[wjemather]

Yes the reccommendation in Appendix C/1 was for the allowance to be 100% in fields of 30 or less. Where's the second bit stated? Is this something outside of the RoH that CONGU issued?

As to the probability of great scores, using 95% seems to have been designed to only to penalise higher handicaps. However, as already pointed out, this is about to change so, C'est la vie. Let's get on with it.

It's in CONGU's Guidance on the WHS Rules of Handicapping as applied within GB&I.
"The National Associations within CONGU have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory."

Allowances do not "penalise" anyone. They are there to maintain equity, such that all players have a fair chance of winning. Larger fields are better separated into handicap divisions (flights) as regardless of the allowances used, one end of the scale will always be disadvantaged - this is a limitation of all handicap systems.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes the reccommendation in Appendix C/1 was for the allowance to be 100% in fields of 30 or less. Where's the second bit stated? Is this something outside of the RoH that CONGU issued?

As to the probability of great scores, using 95% seems to have been designed to only to penalise higher handicaps. However, as already pointed out, this is about to change so, C'est la vie. Let's get on with it.

That is not the reason at all. It is a simple mathematical fact that the higher a handicap a player has, the probability increases that they can shoot better final numerical scores. This being because the range of their top 8 scores (used to get their index) will be bigger than the range of scores used to get the index for lower handicappers. That being the case, the very best of those 8 scores is going to be better (relative to handicap) for a high handicapper. So, for bigger fields, the probability obviously increases that a higher handicapper in the field will shoot a score towards their best in 20, and thus become almost unbeatable for a low handicapper, even if they shoot their best in 20 scores.

Hence, the system has researched that applying 95% in large fields deals with this issue.

 

[wjemather]

That is not the reason at all. It is a simple mathematical fact that the higher a handicap a player has, the probability increases that they can shoot better final numerical scores. This being because the range of their top 8 scores (used to get their index) will be bigger than the range of scores used to get the index for lower handicappers. That being the case, the very best of those 8 scores is going to be better (relative to handicap) for a high handicapper. So, for bigger fields, the probability obviously increases that a higher handicapper in the field will shoot a score towards their best in 20, and thus become almost unbeatable for a low handicapper, even if they shoot their best in 20 scores.

Hence, the system has researched that applying 95% in large fields deals with this issue.

* medium-sized fields

 

[rulefan]

As explained by the then Head of Handicapping at EG

“95 per cent, or the allowance that you get for competition play, is about equity. It’s about ensuring that, when all players are playing together in a field, every player has got the equal chance of success and gaining success in that competition.
“Now if you can imagine a player off scratch, the variation between their best score and their worst score is relatively tight.
“They might have a bad round but their bad round is five over. If they have a good round, it might be two or three under. It’s not going to be eight or nine under, or 10 or 11 under, or shooting 25 over.
“It’s going to be relatively tight, in terms of their expected score, whereas a player off 28 is going to be very different.
“They’re going to be able to have a really good day. A 28 handicapper might actually play to 22 one day, or 20, but they might also play to 45.
“Their expectation is also quite wide, so the higher the handicap the wider the tolerance for their scores.
“If you played everybody off 100 per cent, the high handicap golfers, statistically, always have a better chance of winning – because they could shoot six or seven below, or eight or nine below, quite easily.
“What 95% does is it basically reduces that down – so by taking more shots off the higher handicap players, and fewer shots off the lower handicap players, it means there is a better distribution of success across the field.
“Believe it or not, it might sound like saying you’re saying ‘well, that’s great but why introduce this now?’
“It’s actually always been built within the CONGU system. It was just built in a way that was hidden. You didn’t see it. It was part of the way that a handicap was calculated, and why you only went up point one and you came down by a certain value depending on your handicap category.
“It’s nothing unusual. It’s just it’s now public facing. It’s not just us, the rest of the world are doing it as well. So it’s a global thing. The USGA have a great name for it. They call it Bonus For Excellence, which basically means, the better you are the less impact it has on your score. That’s why it is there.”

 

[rulefan]

It sometimes referred to as a 'Bonus for Excellence'. Described here in an article dating back to 2008 by Dean Knuth, Golf Digest Professional Advisor. Former senior director of the USGA handicap department.

Q: What does "bonus for excellence" mean?

A: To determine your Handicap Index, the USGA formula takes 96 percent of your 10 best differentials (adjusted scores taking Course Rating and Slope into consideration) from your last 20 rounds. Why 96 percent instead of 100? The USGA has added "bonus for excellence" into its system to give better players a slight advantage against higher-handicapped opponents.

Historically, the USGA wanted to reward the accomplishments of better players and recognize that high-handicappers' scores are harder to predict (wider range of scores and more room for improvement). The formula gives less-skilled golfers fewer strokes than they might need on average.

So if the handicap difference between two players is one stroke, the better player should win the match 53 percent of the time. For a six-stroke difference in handicap, the better player gains a one-shot advantage and should win 60 percent of the matches.