Can you be too keen on the rules ?

[SammmeBee]

Well the 90% is because you are playing a differing format - mainly 4BBB , I can’t recall a time where is ever been 100% playing 4BBB - it was 3/4 at one point then went to 80% I believe

the new WHS calculations for 4BBB are a touch complicated - working out playing HC then 100% the difference ( in matchplay ) . Not sure why they didn’t stick with the use the Course Handicap and then the difference is 90 or 80% etc - I suspect people are still working out the shots they get in 4BBB matchplay wrong

As for the 95% - no idea , asked the question many times and given a “it’s how they worked it out” ?‍?‍ Random answers . Doesn’t really affect me but I don’t understand why if your course handicap is 16 you should play of 16 .

Don’t forget 85% in 4BBB

 

[wjemather]

It is a shame that EG went for the word "handicap" three times. They don't do this in Australia. The word "handicap" is used only for Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay which they call "Daily Handicap". They go straight from GA Index to Daily Handicap and they have no need for an equivalent to our Course Handicap.
So we could have called ours,
EG Index
Slope Adjusted Index
Playing Handicap

This might have caused far less confusion. I've heard that there is nowhere near as much confusion in Australia as here.

You need a handicap when playing with and against others - this will always be the correct playing handicap for the format of play.
When returning scores for handicap assessment and adjustment there is a nett double bogey limit according to your Slope Adjusted Index

I think it's the word handicap in the final step that causes most confusion. "WHS Index", "Course Handicap", and "strokes received/stroke allowance" would have done the job nicely and better described exactly what is meant by "playing handicap".

There hasn't been much confusion in Australia because they have been using an almost identical system for years.

 

[wjemather]

As for the 95% - no idea , asked the question many times and given a “it’s how they worked it out” ?‍?‍ Random answers . Doesn’t really affect me but I don’t understand why if your course handicap is 16 you should play of 16.

According to the documentation produced:

Full course handicaps were found to be equitable in individual match play and small stroke play fields. The recommendation in WHS is for 95% to be applied in fields of over 30 players to restore equity where a larger number of higher handicappers increases the likelihood of a great score being returned by one of them; CONGU decided to apply it to all formally organised competitions (such as those run by union affiliated clubs/organisations) irrespective of field size.

So by choosing the simplicity of applying it to all comps, there is now slight bias in favour of lower handicappers in small field stroke play comps.

 

[IanM]

The content of the thread demonstrates unequivocally that some folk are!

 

[Rlburnside]

For General Play rounds do you really need to work out out a Course Handicap or Playing Handicap, just enter your scores and the app will take care of your 'adjusted net differential'

No why would you need to do that, simply put it in the app and don’t worry about it, I just mistakenly thought 95% was used for general play rounds.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I think it's the word handicap in the final step that causes most confusion. "WHS Index", "Course Handicap", and "strokes received/stroke allowance" would have done the job nicely and better described exactly what is meant by "playing handicap".

There hasn't been much confusion in Australia because they have been using an almost identical system for years.

You make a good point.
It was the timing of the information that came through in dribs and drabs throughout 2020 that must be given some blame for the confusion here.
Many latched on to an idea that Course Handicap had directly replaced their old handicap.
Playing Handicap information was given much later and did not remove the misconception that was already in the minds of many.
"Your old handicap was what you played off in medals and stablefords; this has been replaced with a playing handicap for individual strokeplay." That is what I have been trying to explain to members at my club. This causes great hostility similar to the OP anecdote. Social stableford roll-ups are being played to Course Handicap and objectors are ostracised for pointing out that this is wrong. Majority view in this case is wrong, I believe.
I do not play in groups that allow some, but not others, to add an unwarranted extra shot to their handicaps and play for money.

 

[phils226]

Generally on being too keen on the rules, I find the exact opposite in that many golfers do not make enough effort to learn the rules. I'm a qualified referee and many know this at my Club so often ask me about the rules. Some of the quesions I'm asked - even by experienced golfers - are so obvious it does make you wonder how these people play competitions. I actually find an understanding of the rules increases my enjoyment of the game but that may just be me!

By the way for those interested there's a great set of short videos on the National Club Golfer Website with John Paramour.

 

[wjemather]

You make a good point.
It was the timing of the information that came through in dribs and drabs throughout 2020 that must be given some blame for the confusion here.
Many latched on to an idea that Course Handicap had directly replaced their old handicap.
Playing Handicap information was given much later and did not remove the misconception that was already in the minds of many.
"Your old handicap was what you played off in medals and stablefords; this has been replaced with a playing handicap for individual strokeplay." That is what I have been trying to explain to members at my club. This causes great hostility similar to the OP anecdote. Social stableford roll-ups are being played to Course Handicap and objectors are ostracised for pointing out that this is wrong. Majority view in this case is wrong, I believe.
I do not play in groups that allow some, but not others, to add an unwarranted extra shot to their handicaps and play for money.

Such groups are under no obligation to apply WHS allowances, or even use WHS handicaps at all - indeed, many groups run their own handicap system.

For simplicity, full course handicaps is actually what I would recommend for these groups - noting that as they rarely exceed 30 people, it is equitable.

 

[clubchamp98]

I think it's the word handicap in the final step that causes most confusion. "WHS Index", "Course Handicap", and "strokes received/stroke allowance" would have done the job nicely and better described exactly what is meant by "playing handicap".

There hasn't been much confusion in Australia because they have been using an almost identical system for years.

I wonder why we never adopted the Australian model instead of this over complicated one ?
The Aussie one sounds much easier to understand.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Such groups are under no obligation to apply WHS allowances, or even use WHS handicaps at all - indeed, many groups run their own handicap system.

For simplicity, full course handicaps is actually what I would recommend for these groups - noting that as they rarely exceed 30 people, it is equitable.

Interesting.
Would you recommend that these groups use mandatory playing handicaps when they exceed 30 in number?
Would remembering to do so not make it more complicated rather than the simplicity you advise?

I believe there is only one set of rules of handicapping that we should be observing and that is the rules of handicapping as adopted by England Golf.
Making up our own rules for social golf is fine as long as it does not give an unfair advantage or disadvantage to anyone.

One further question.
What about club competitions where the number of entrants is 20 or fewer. Would you recommend 100% allowance in these in contradiction of the rules of handicapping as adopted by England Golf where it is stated that 95% is mandatory regardless of field size?
I believe there is scope for clubs to do this, if they so choose. Those who disagree can choose not to enter. But does this not add to the confusion and hostility rather than making it "simplicity"?

 

[wjemather]

I wonder why we never adopted the Australian model instead of this over complicated one ?
The Aussie one sounds much easier to understand.

Having a playing handicap/allowance calculation really isn't that complicated. In all honesty, except for a few small changes (the most noticeable being the singles stroke play allowance no longer being 100%), it isn't actually any different to what we had before.

Presumably, if we had gone down the Australian route, people would question why we had introduced/retained systemic bias in favour of low handicappers.

 

[wjemather]

Interesting.
Would you recommend that these groups use mandatory playing handicaps when they exceed 30 in number?
Would remembering to do so not make it more complicated rather than the simplicity you advise?

I believe there is only one set of rules of handicapping that we should be observing and that is the rules of handicapping as adopted by England Golf.
Making up our own rules for social golf is fine as long as it does give an unfair advantage or disadvantage to anyone.

One further question.
What about club competitions where the number of entrants is 20 or fewer. Would you recommend 100% allowance in these in contradiction of the rules of handicapping as adopted by England Golf where it is stated that 95% is mandatory regardless of field size?
I believe there is scope for clubs to do this, if they so choose. Those who disagree can choose not to enter. But does this not add to the confusion and hostility rather than making it "simplicity"?

No, I'd still recommend social groups avoid unnecessary manual calculations, even if their number exceed 30.

Club competitions are bound by CONGU's decision to make WHS allowances mandatory; and they have software which does all the calculations.

 

[Voyager EMH]

No, I'd still recommend social groups avoid unnecessary manual calculations, even if their number exceed 30.

Club competitions are bound by CONGU's decision to make WHS allowances mandatory; and they have software which does all the calculations.

I don't see this distinction in the rules of handicapping.
It states that allowances are mandatory for event organisers to apply. So there is no distinction between a club competition and a social group that has an organiser, in the way that I read it.
Allowances are mandatory when playing with and against each other - this makes no distinction between a social group and a club competition.
Following just one set of handicapping rules makes it "simplicity" in my view.

 

[wjemather]

I don't see this distinction in the rules of handicapping.
It states that allowances are mandatory for event organisers to apply. So there is no distinction between a club competition and a social group that has an organiser, in the way that I read it.
Allowances are mandatory when playing with and against each other - this makes no distinction between a social group and a club competition.
Following just one set of handicapping rules makes it "simplicity" in my view.

Independent groups are not bound by CONGU or the rules of handicapping. They are free to adopt as little or as much of WHS (and CONGU's guidance) as they like, or even use an entirely different handicap system.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Independent groups are not bound by CONGU or the rules of handicapping. They are free to adopt as little or as much of WHS (and CONGU's guidance) as they like, or even use an entirely different handicap system.

Great. I think that I might tell any social group that although my HI is 3.0, I will play off 7 in social golf, because I am a group of one that is not bound by any handicapping rules.
I won't do this. of course, because I'm not an idiot.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Don’t forget 85% in 4BBB

IIRC it's 90% CH and then full difference off lowest for 4BBB matchplay, and 85% CH with no differencing off lowest for 4BBB strokeplay (medal, par/bogey, s/ford).

 

[Voyager EMH]

Betterball medal and stableford is 85%, but I believe betterball par/bogey is 90%. Unless there has been yet another amendment.

 

[wjemather]

Great. I think that I might tell any social group that although my HI is 3.0, I will play off 7 in social golf, because I am a group of one that is not bound by any handicapping rules.
I won't do this. of course, because I'm not an idiot.

Gimmes, advice, incorrect drops, preferred lies, mulligans, etc.; all of these are against the rules of golf but are routinely part of informal social golf. I assume you have no issue with these being acceptable, so I don't really see why you think handicapping must be treated any differently.

 

[John Evans 9]

Gimmes, advice, incorrect drops, preferred lies, mulligans, etc.; all of these are against the rules of golf but are routinely part of informal social golf. I assume you have no issue with these being acceptable, so I don't really see why you think handicapping must be treated any differently.

They are not all against the rules.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Gimmes, advice, incorrect drops, preferred lies, mulligans, etc.; all of these are against the rules of golf but are routinely part of informal social golf. I assume you have no issue with these being acceptable, so I don't really see why you think handicapping must be treated any differently.

I think that the reason my view differs from yours stems from my reading of the following...



Gimmies, mulligans etc are not essentially "unfair" if applied to everyone in the same way.