Changes to WHS in April 2024

[NearHull]

Got the edit. Does the Playing Handicap in a competition include the 95% adjustment? And are you applying the same 95% socially? I just use Course Handicap socially now, as applying the 95% is a bit pointless (unless you're playing with a few high handicappers and you want them to lose an extra shot )

I applied the 95% for both comp and casual. There are going to be other rounding trip points, I am not clever enough to identify them all but I believe it will occur for non rounded CH that end with .5 or close to it.
it’s a minor issue but some members will want to scratch the itch to bleeding point.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Seems madness to count 4BBB scores, even before you get into the vagaries of who scored on which hole. I know I play a very different style of golf in 4BBB and that’s sort of the point of it!

It will only count if you shoot a good score. Which I agree with. It’s clear to stop the bandits.

I’d like to see it extended to match play too.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I edited my response rather slowly. Please reread it.

And I was obviously joking about a 1970s calculator - didn't expect anyone to take that seriously.
It was a point I tried to make with humour.
"Machine Precision" as a phrase for a fairly simple bit of arithmetic was something I found risible.

 

[NearHull]

Machine precision is the smallest number ε such that the difference between 1 and 1 + ε is nonzero, ie., it is the smallest difference between two numbers that the computer recognizes. On a 32 bit computer, single precision is 2-23 (approximately 10-7) while double precision is 2-52(approximately 10-16) .


doesn’t mean much to me , and I managed military aircraft software in the past

 

[Alan Clifford]

How do they come to be sat in a box for days?
Rule 1.3 & Appendix A - players have the responsibility to submit scores asap and before midnight on the day of play; and clubs and handicap committees have the responsibility to ensure this happens.

I agree.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Machine precision is the smallest number ε such that the difference between 1 and 1 + ε is nonzero, ie., it is the smallest difference between two numbers that the computer recognizes. On a 32 bit computer, single precision is 2-23 (approximately 10-7) while double precision is 2-52(approximately 10-16) .


doesn’t mean much to me , and I managed military aircraft software in the past

I think that SR/113 need only be done to 3 dec plcs to calculate PHs of 95%, 90% etc that will be correct.
For my yellow tees 127/113 = 1.124
I will then be multiplying that by a two-digit or a three-digit number mostly. (sometimes a one-digit)
Could do that easily enough with paper and pencil. Using a simple calculator would be quicker though.
Some very simple addition or subtraction, then Bob's-your-uncle an unrounded CH.
Knocking 5% or 10% off that - fairly simple again.
I think I can trust myself with the necessary accuracy (doesn't need "machine precision" ) as much as I can trust a computer program made by someone else.

WHS authorities don't seem too bothered about "machine precision" when it comes to averaging best 8 out of 20 score differentials.

 

[Alan Clifford]

I think that SR/113 need only be done to 3 dec plcs to calculate PHs of 95%, 90% etc that will be correct.
For my yellow tees 127/113 = 1.124
I will then be multiplying that by a two-digit or a three-digit number mostly. (sometimes a one-digit)
Could do that easily enough with paper and pencil. Using a simple calculator would be quicker though.
Some very simple addition or subtraction, then Bob's-your-uncle an unrounded CH.
Knocking 5% or 10% off that - fairly simple again.
I think I can trust myself with the necessary accuracy (doesn't need "machine precision" ) as much as I can trust a computer program made by someone else.

WHS authorities don't seem too bothered about "machine precision" when it comes to averaging best 8 out of 20 score differentials.

This stuff drives me insane. South Africa store differentals to 3 dp. Why? Either store them as a float or round to 1dp. Or whatever is specified in the manual. Oh, it's "An 18-hole Score Differential is calculated as follows and rounded to the nearest tenth, with .5 rounded upwards". How hard can it be?

 

[IanMcC]

I think that SR/113 need only be done to 3 dec plcs to calculate PHs of 95%, 90% etc that will be correct.
For my yellow tees 127/113 = 1.124
I will then be multiplying that by a two-digit or a three-digit number mostly. (sometimes a one-digit)
Could do that easily enough with paper and pencil. Using a simple calculator would be quicker though.
Some very simple addition or subtraction, then Bob's-your-uncle an unrounded CH.
Knocking 5% or 10% off that - fairly simple again.
I think I can trust myself with the necessary accuracy (doesn't need "machine precision" ) as much as I can trust a computer program made by someone else.

WHS authorities don't seem too bothered about "machine precision" when it comes to averaging best 8 out of 20 score differentials.

Its not all about you, you know.
Some people are still struggling with 95%. I was asked on Wednesday by a senior why he 'lost a shot'.
This latest alteration will drive some people to despair.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Its not all about you, you know.
Some people are still struggling with 95%. I was asked on Wednesday by a senior why he 'lost a shot'.
This latest alteration will drive some people to despair.

I agree with this.
I strongly suspect that most social golf at my club from 1st April will take little or no notice of changes to CH and PH calculation, including CR-Par!
First time around, many stuck with 90% of the difference between CH for betterball matchplay for all of the first year.

What mish-mash or cherry-picking of the changes they end up with after a year-or-so is anybody's guess.
It will be the real world of amateur club social golf, however.

 

[D-S]

As Course Handicaps will be unrounded and at the moment boards display them as rounded, will this mean that these boards will in some way become redundant as the figures will be ‘wrong’?
I realise that touchscreens, apps etc. will (and currently do) be able to display the ‘correct‘ figures and all the resultant correct playing handicaps - so will clubs be retaining boards with rounded CHs (having boards with unrounded would require far too much space) which might merely add to the confusion?

 

[Alan Clifford]

As Course Handicaps will be unrounded and at the moment boards display them as rounded, will this mean that these boards will in some way become redundant as the figures will be ‘wrong’?
I realise that touchscreens, apps etc. will (and currently do) be able to display the ‘correct‘ figures and all the resultant correct playing handicaps - so will clubs be retaining boards with rounded CHs (having boards with unrounded would require far too much space) which might merely add to the confusion?

What do computers use now for unrounded numbers these days, 64 bit binary? That could be a tad challenging for the board designers.

 

[Jimaroid]

What on earth is “computer precision”? That is not a recognised standard of anything in computing.

IEEE or GTFO.

 

[Alan Clifford]

What on earth is “computer precision”? That is not a recognised standard of anything in computing.

IEEE or GTFO.

I read a comment today in another place regarding EU legislation on browsers, "You have to understand that the folks in the EU making these laws have roughly a Bronze Age understanding of technology." That might be applicable here.

 

[Swango1980]

I agree with this.
I strongly suspect that most social golf at my club from 1st April will take little or no notice of changes to CH and PH calculation, including CR-Par!
First time around, many stuck with 90% of the difference between CH for betterball matchplay for all of the first year.

What mish-mash or cherry-picking of the changes they end up with after a year-or-so is anybody's guess.
It will be the real world of amateur club social golf, however.

Why would people ignore CR-Par, that is just part of the equation to get the Course Handicap.

Surely they'll just use a board or App to get their course handicap. They can't ignore CR-Par. To exclude it, they'd have to actually be aware of what it is, and then add it on to their Course Handicap. I can't see many people doing that?

In relation to Playing Hcps, I agree that there are enough different percentages to confuse many. And I still know loads that don't get it, they just do as they're told. Our club sent out the Winter League rules a while ago, and it still said 90% the difference. Look like it was just left over from pre WHS, and to be fair they amended it quickly once I mentioned it

 

[wjemather]

As Course Handicaps will be unrounded and at the moment boards display them as rounded, will this mean that these boards will in some way become redundant as the figures will be ‘wrong’?
I realise that touchscreens, apps etc. will (and currently do) be able to display the ‘correct‘ figures and all the resultant correct playing handicaps - so will clubs be retaining boards with rounded CHs (having boards with unrounded would require far too much space) which might merely add to the confusion?

All existing boards will be wrong unless Course Rating = Par.
Course Handicap boards are not entirely redundant and should display the rounded value as this remains correct for handicap purposes (and for all non-software calculated handicap usage) and is what players should play with reference to when it comes to picking up in Stableford comps, etc. Even so, the info document states that "there is no mandatory requirement for Course Handicap boards – clubs may choose what is best for them".

 

[wjemather]

What on earth is “computer precision”? That is not a recognised standard of anything in computing.

IEEE or GTFO.

"Machine precision" (aka "machine epsilon").

 

[wjemather]

I agree with this.
I strongly suspect that most social golf at my club from 1st April will take little or no notice of changes to CH and PH calculation, including CR-Par!
First time around, many stuck with 90% of the difference between CH for betterball matchplay for all of the first year.

What mish-mash or cherry-picking of the changes they end up with after a year-or-so is anybody's guess.
It will be the real world of amateur club social golf, however.

Amateur social golf has never been under any obligation to use whatever official handicap system is in operation; many groups will continue to choose to use their own ad-hoc system which may or may not bear some resemblance to the official system that affiliated organisations must use for their competitions.

 

[D-S]

All existing boards will be wrong unless Course Rating = Par.
Course Handicap boards are not entirely redundant and should display the rounded value as this remains correct for handicap purposes (and for all non-software calculated handicap usage) and is what players should play with reference to when it comes to picking up in Stableford comps, etc. Even so, the info document states that "there is no mandatory requirement for Course Handicap boards – clubs may choose what is best for them".

I wonder how many clubs will now pay for boards as they need to update them to include CR-Par, especially as they are “not entirely redundant”, now will not display all the information required (as they will display rounded values) and may serve only to increase confusion, as well they may well require updating in due course due to ratings changes etc.. I assume the cost and hassle will lead some/all clubs to think they will be more grief than they are worth.

 

[Swango1980]

I wonder how many clubs will now pay for boards as they need to update them to include CR-Par, especially as they are “not entirely redundant”, now will not display all the information required (as they will display rounded values) and may serve only to increase confusion, as well they may well require updating in due course due to ratings changes etc.. I assume the cost and hassle will lead some/all clubs to think they will be more grief than they are worth.

Are updating boards, maybe at worst every 4 or so years, a major hassle or expense for golf clubs?

 

[wjemather]

I wonder how many clubs will now pay for boards as they need to update them to include CR-Par, especially as they are “not entirely redundant”, now will not display all the information required (as they will display rounded values) and may serve only to increase confusion, as well they may well require updating in due course due to ratings changes etc.. I assume the cost and hassle will lead some/all clubs to think they will be more grief than they are worth.

The only information players require is their rounded Course Handicap (unrounded values are not required by anyone) and their rounded Playing Handicap. Depending on the circumstances, the latter can either be calculated via software (ISV, MyEG app, spreadsheet, etc.) which will use the unrounded value, or manually by the player using the rounded CH value (which could be obtained from a CH board).

CH boards always had a limited lifespan due to the course rating cycle.