CONGU, WHS and Rule E5

[Lord Tyrion]

It'll be fun. If someone asks your handicap now, it is a straight answer. With WHS if someone asks your handicap, the answer will be more questions, like "what course are we playing? what format are we playing?". You could of course just give the Handicap Index, but it has less meaning than Handicap now probably, because many golfers will never actually play off their Index, it will just be the starting point used in the equation to get your course handicap, followed by your playing handicap.

I suspect for 95% of golfers they wont think anything different to how they think now. You are giving way too much credit to the average golfer. Ultimately on this it is like irons having different lofts. If someone says I hit a PW 100yds and someone else says they hit it 120yds, how many people question the loft on each club? You are correct that it will no longer be quite so simple but it will be close enough for most not to care.

 

[patricks148]

In fairness it's the 'tweaks' that are going to cause a lot of the complexities, frustrations and even disappointments....
Removing the reward for excellence from within the calculated handicap (index) as currently under all systems, removal of the focus on returning 'all' scores and, in the CONGU implementation, the caps to free flowing implementation (rigid or review caps).

It's a more complicated but fairer system for handicap golfers - ignore the past, ignore the calculations, just use it.

easy to say, but when you don't have a a clue what your handicap is how is calulated and on what course..... its hard to forget the past... esp when the past was so straight forwrd

 

[Jacko_G]

Whilst I have no issue disagreeing, I find it fascinating that you see the changes as 'a whole new concept'.
I see only one change to the concept itself - basically an intention that handicapping should have an increased element of 'form' over the previous focus on underlying capability, especially with regard to increases (although the latest change there was to provide an increased focus on form there via AR and the two override elements ESR and 'consistent buffer failure increases' ).
However, even the averaging has been tweaked from the USGA to more closely match the previous CONGU alogirythm.
Slope isn't a concept change; it's a practical application of the existing concept of course rating. Courses have been rated against their layout and set up and a set of playing parameters for many decades. The change is that it has been accepted that using a scratch golfer parameter to handicap an 18 handicapper is fundamentally flawed, and cannot subsequently be levelled through stroke allowances. So a CR is now established for this golfer as well as the scratch one - and all the various processes and calculations follow naturally. The concept of handicapping to a course rating remains, but the application has been improved.

So we have one change, which is a natural extension to the most recent moves under the existing CONGU system whereby players whose form shifts significantly from their previously established (proven) capabilities will move further/faster.
One improvement in the better implementation of course ratings to base handicaps on.

Whole new concept? - think you are reading the marketing hype 🤔

Can I ask why you think the course rating is better and what has been done to achieve this? I 100% agree that the old scratch and bogey system was 100% flawed I don't see this having changed and was still under the impression that the rating was based on a scratch golfer and a handicap golfers and how they would play the course?

I did the course rating course a few years ago and them declined to be part of the county rating team based on my concerns and fundamental flaws.

It's going to be interesting and I look forward to hearing stories of how indexes are doing south of the border. Fluctuations will be interesting.

 

[rulefan]

Yeah, I think it might be 90% for individual strokeplay (medal / Stableford).

It is 95%

 

[rulefan]

Can I ask why you think the course rating is better and what has been done to achieve this? I 100% agree that the old scratch and bogey system was 100% flawed I don't see this having changed and was still under the impression that the rating was based on a scratch golfer and a handicap golfers and how they would play the course?

I did the course rating course a few years ago and them declined to be part of the county rating team based on my concerns and fundamental flaws.

It's going to be interesting and I look forward to hearing stories of how indexes are doing south of the border. Fluctuations will be interesting.

If you were in England, there was no scratch and bogey system. Elswhere in GB&I the same USGA system was used but bogey rating (and slope) were not used in the CONGU system. The rating system now used in all CONGU is essentially the USGA tweaked a little over the last few years.
As the now retired rating manager for my county (and previously a rater under the England Golf system), I would be interested in hearing about what you saw as 'fundamental flaws'.

 

[Swango1980]

I suspect for 95% of golfers they wont think anything different to how they think now. You are giving way too much credit to the average golfer. Ultimately on this it is like irons having different lofts. If someone says I hit a PW 100yds and someone else says they hit it 120yds, how many people question the loft on each club? You are correct that it will no longer be quite so simple but it will be close enough for most not to care.

I agree, it is just something that we will start to get used to. After all, we have no choice. However, golfers are bound to think differently. For example. a 20 handicapper now get asked what is your handicap, they answer "20". It's a simple answer, easy to remember.

With WHS a player may well have an Index of 20.0. But, if they played at my course their course handicap would be 23.5, and they'd use that in singles match play. But, in singles stroke play they'd play off 22.3. So, if asked what their handicap is, do they answer 20, 22 or 24? You could say they'll should just say the Index of 20, but of course they may well be used to the 22 handicap they usually play off in singles comps. I mean, I know players who play off a CONGU handicap of about 18, but tell people they play off 6 because that is what they play off in their society. Completely ignoring the fact that the society handicap is calculated in the most ridiculous way (win a comp, they cut you 10 shots).

My comments here are not a criticism of the WHS system (I don't really know the detail well enough myself at this stage to judge on fairness), it's just more an observation on how it may be perceived. I think the big thing about it is, for harder courses it is not that everybody gets a lot more shots and vice versa. It's that, the higher handicappers will get relatively more shots than the lower handicappers. So, under CONGU a 0 handicapper always gets 0, a 20 handicapper always gets 20. The difference is always 20 shots regardless of the course. Under WHS, the 0 Indexer (0.0) will always get 0 shots regardless of the course. But, the higher 20 Indexer may get 18 shots on a very easy course, but 23 shots on a very hard course. So, the system may well be "fairer" in terms of giving a different level of shots for less able golfers at hard courses, but being less generous at easy courses. Maybe this will be perceived well by most golfers, maybe not. Hard to know at this stage.

 

[rulefan]

So, in reality, Slope is not purely a definition of how hard a course is for all golfers, but how large the relative gap in difficulty is between scratch and bogey golfers? When a member of the club approaches me and asks "why do I have a course handicap of 18 for both the yellow and white tees?", I think that will be a difficult question to answer to their satisfaction. I guess the answer just needs to be similar to what it is now, in that if the CR is 1 lower than par (whites) you are aiming for 37 points to play to handicap, if CR is 3 lower than par (yellows) you are aiming for 39 points? That's fine, but as I said above, I think the perception of most golfers is that the handicap will change to ensure you are always aiming for 36 points. Also, if a player had an Index at my place of 7.0 (our course is often perceived as being relatively easy), their white course handicap would be 8.2. If they went to play at the Hotchkin blue tees at Woodhall Spa (one of the hardest in our county, and highest Slope of 152) they'd play off 9.4 (i.e. 1 extra shot). If a player had an Index of 28.0, then at my place their course handicap would be 33.0, at Woodhall 37.7 (extra 5 shots). So, perception wise, maybe the players with the higher indexes will appreciate the jump in handicap more. However, those with lower indexes might become quite demoralised when playing harder courses, and struggle to see how the handicapping is fair? I just hope I have an explanation that is easy to understand, especially when we go to away days and higher handicappers are getting even MORE shots than usual, which can be a sore point at the best of times for a handful of low handicappers.

Why bother trying to keep track of stableford points. That is simply measuring you game against par - which tell you nothing about the quality of your play.
Compare your net score (net of playing handicap) against the course rating - that what it is all about.

 

[Swango1980]

Why bother trying to keep track of stableford points. That is simply measuring you game against par - which tell you nothing about the quality of your play.
Compare your net score (net of playing handicap) against the course rating - that what it is all about.

I've been telling players that for years (i.e. compare to SSS rather than par). I agree with your point, but in my experience there are still a lot of players than struggle with this concept, and continue to use 36 points as their bench mark and then, as a result incorrectly argue that they can't compete with players from a harder course because they don't understand SSS.

So, from the conversations I've had with many club golfers, and even heard on forums in the past, I believe the perception of WHS is that your handicap will just change so that you'll now be aiming for 36 points regardless (as your handicap will be higher at hard courses, and vice versa). That was my initial impression as well. However, that's not the case. You are aiming, as you say, for the Course Rating. So, in effect, I've to give the same reasoning as before, but just replace SSS with CR. Given that many don't seem to grasp this now, I don't expect them to get it with WHS, especially when there is the added confusion that their handicap does still go up and down depending on course difficulty, but maybe not as much as they'd expect, especially for low Indexers.

I'm not saying that WHS is less fair than CONGU. But if it is fair, I'm hoping it is easy to get that message across to most golfers. I'm starting to understand the workings of it, but it is certainly more complex than CONGU. I know we currently rely on computers anyway, but put it this way. If computers were to all fail tomorrow, and we had to do absolutely everything by hand like in the past, I would definitely prefer to be work with CONGU rather than WHS. I know calculating CSS might be the most complex bit we are thankful for having computers now. But, WHS also works out a course difficulty factor at the end of the day, and I've not even got near trying to investigate the workings of that yet.

In January I'm presenting my findings on the WHS so far to the Committee. I'm sure I'll get something decent together, but it will be a challenge to structure it without losing them. I may start it as "As you are aware, currently you have a CONGU handicap, and that is your handicap wherever you go. This handicap is calculated based on SSS/CSS, and therefore takes into account the difficulty of the course and conditions, and therefore ensures a fairly level playing field when competing with members from other clubs. However, as SSS only accounts for the scratch golfer, CONGU doesn't take into account the relative difference between low and high handicappers. With WHS, Slope takes this into account. Slope is calculated by factoring the difference between CR (Scratch golfer) and BR (Bogey golfer). Therefore, for courses that are deemed relatively harder for higher handicappers, the Slope will be higher. Each player will have a handicap index, calculated by (in simple terms) taking the players best 8 gross scores from last 20 rounds, and finding the average difference between that and the CR (allowing for a desloping factor also). However, this Handicap Index is not handicap the player will play off. From the index, a Course handicap must be calculated, which is Index x Slope/113, where 113 is deemed to be the slope of a standard course. Therefore, the course handicap will be higher for high slope courses, and vice versa. Likewise, players with Higher Indexes will see higher fluctuations in their course handicap compared to low handicappers when playing at courses with low / high slopes. Finally, depending on the format of competition, the playing handicap will be different. For example, for singles match play it will be equal to the course handicap, but for singles strokeplay it will be 95% of course handicap. WHS will not calculate your handicap once you card has been submitted (or once competition is closed), but will be done at the end of the day. It processes all cards throughout the day, whether they were in comp or not, to work out a factor for course conditions, similar to CSS. It will calculate your new Index. If you have a competition the next day, you should be able to either check the app, or computer system at the club you are at (even an away club) to check your latest Index. There should also be facilities / posters on display to help you convert your Index to a playing handicap for the course. Note, if you don't have an app, or the computer at the club is down, you are probably still responsible for playing off the correct handicap. So, you better check someone elses phone on their app, as it would be impossible for you to figure this out manually (even if they did know their last 20 scores, and had a head like a spreadsheet, they are not going to know what factor was used for course conditions for each of their 20 rounds).

That's my first draft, but their may be some heavy editing before January

 

[Jacko_G]

If you were in England, there was no scratch and bogey system. Elswhere in GB&I the same USGA system was used but bogey rating (and slope) were not used in the CONGU system. The rating system now used in all CONGU is essentially the USGA tweaked a little over the last few years.
As the now retired rating manager for my county (and previously a rater under the England Golf system), I would be interested in hearing about what you saw as 'fundamental flaws'.

Fundamental flaws are the distances for a start. Saying a bogey golfer only carries the ball 180 carry and 20 yards run is nonsense, likewise they only hit a second shot 150 +20. therefore only certain hazards are in play' Likewise the scratch golfer distances are nonsense and really doesn't take into consideration "tactical golf" as these are set bench marks.

I've played golf with a 22 handicap golfer who smashes his 3 wood 60 yards past my driver, he gives shots back with his short game from 60 yards in.

 

[cliveb]

Fundamental flaws are the distances for a start. Saying a bogey golfer only carries the ball 180 carry and 20 yards run is nonsense, likewise they only hit a second shot 150 +20. therefore only certain hazards are in play' Likewise the scratch golfer distances are nonsense and really doesn't take into consideration "tactical golf" as these are set bench marks.

I've played golf with a 22 handicap golfer who smashes his 3 wood 60 yards past my driver, he gives shots back with his short game from 60 yards in.

Higher handicap golfers come in all types. Some of the old guys at my club are lucky to hit a driver over 150, but chip and putt like God. Others are like the guy you mention and hit the ball miles (but not necessarily in the right direction). So to say that the distances are nonsense only applies to some players. But you have to have a system of some sort. Any system is bound to yield weird results on some occasions.

 

[rulefan]

That's my first draft, but their may be some heavy editing before January

Have a look at this
https://www.carolinasghinsupport.org/images/carolinasghinsupport/site/downloads/Booklet_10_28.pdf
but note that for CONGU there are two differences.

Course Handicap Calculation - ignore the second formula - that only relates to the US.
Playing Handicap Calculation - replace '+ difference in pars' with '+difference in Course Rating' - again a US variation

 

[rulefan]

Fundamental flaws are the distances for a start. Saying a bogey golfer only carries the ball 180 carry and 20 yards run is nonsense, likewise they only hit a second shot 150 +20. therefore only certain hazards are in play' Likewise the scratch golfer distances are nonsense and really doesn't take into consideration "tactical golf" as these are set bench marks.

I've played golf with a 22 handicap golfer who smashes his 3 wood 60 yards past my driver, he gives shots back with his short game from 60 yards in.

The USGA make the point that these are average distances take from many thousands of samplings. To the best of my knowledge, no one has come up with a better practicable method. But over the years it has been shown to be pretty robust.
But long hitting bogey driver is likely to hit other problems which cause issues, otherwise he wouldn't be a bogey player. Swings and roundabouts.
Incidentally, over the last ten years the average drive of a scratch player has only gone up by 4 yards. Statistically insignificant they say.

Tactical golf is accounted for in Forced or By Choice layups

 

[louise_a]

Don't understand this bit?

The handicap index has exactly the same meaning as a current handicap does under CONGU.

It was in reply to Swango saying the index would have less meaning than the current handicap does, I should have quoted his comment but forgot to.

 

[rulefan]

It was in reply to Swango saying the index would have less meaning than the current handicap does, I should have quoted his comment but forgot to.

I can see Swango's point. The handicap a player pays off in CONGU is only the Exact rounded but there are a couple of 'changes' required to get from the WHS Index to the handicap a player plays off.

 

[duncan mackie]

Fundamental flaws are the distances for a start. Saying a bogey golfer only carries the ball 180 carry and 20 yards run is nonsense, likewise they only hit a second shot 150 +20. therefore only certain hazards are in play' Likewise the scratch golfer distances are nonsense and really doesn't take into consideration "tactical golf" as these are set bench marks.

I've played golf with a 22 handicap golfer who smashes his 3 wood 60 yards past my driver, he gives shots back with his short game from 60 yards in.

I believe in the law of large numbers....for every 20 handicap golfer who can belt it miles I see many, many more who can't even carry 180 with a driver.
At the end of the day any disparity between such players capability and the rating assumptions will get fully reflected in their handicap index - after which it really seems to come down to ego. If I had a £ for every low handicap golfer who's one and only comment after a match was about how far his high handicap opponent hit the ball off the tee I could solve world poverty 🤗

 

[Jacko_G]

I believe in the law of large numbers....for every 20 handicap golfer who can belt it miles I see many, many more who can't even carry 180 with a driver.
At the end of the day any disparity between such players capability and the rating assumptions will get fully reflected in their handicap index - after which it really seems to come down to ego. If I had a £ for every low handicap golfer who's one and only comment after a match was about how far his high handicap opponent hit the ball off the tee I could solve world poverty 🤗

Well let's add in "normal conditions" what is normal for wind? What is the normal speed and direction? I play links and the wind can swing 180 in a matter of minutes, it picks up and drops with the tide.

Regarding distance. With a dog leg par 5 if the scratch golfer has 210 carry to cut the corner/hazard then the system says that they won't go for the green (or can't) which is again utter tosh. I know people that can carry a 5 iron 210!

While I appreciate and accept there is no perfect way I think this fictional scratch and bogey golfer is outdated nonsense with more holes than a tea bag.

 

[duncan mackie]

Well let's add in "normal conditions" what is normal for wind? What is the normal speed and direction? I play links and the wind can swing 180 in a matter of minutes, it picks up and drops with the tide.

Regarding distance. With a dog leg par 5 if the scratch golfer has 210 carry to cut the corner/hazard then the system says that they won't go for the green (or can't) which is again utter tosh. I know people that can carry a 5 iron 210!

While I appreciate and accept there is no perfect way I think this fictional scratch and bogey golfer is outdated nonsense with more holes than a tea bag.

Completely agree that conditions are rarely average, rough rarely gets mown every day and that not only are there few average capability golfers in each, and any, category created but those that are average dont play the shots they probably should anyway!

I believe it's better than nothing, and the complexities of the introduction of the bogey index elements are, on balance, a price worth paying.

None of this is important to the true elite golfer (where WAGR rules anyway), and handicap index will change where the theory and practice differ across individual golfers for all the rest.

 

[Swango1980]

Interesting that the slope has a Minimum of 55 (very easy) and maximum of 155 (extremely difficult). If a course had a slope of 55, that would imply a difference between course rating and bogey rating of only 10.2 shots. If the slope was 155 the difference would be 28.8.

What is more interesting though, is a course of standard difficulty is expected to have a Slope of 113, and this is why we multiply the Index by Slope / 113 to get our course handicap. I therefore expected (wrongly it seems) that it would be fairly common to have courses with Slopes above and below this 113. In the 91 measured courses in Lincolnshire the highest Slope is 151 (Woodhall Spa Hotchkin Course, White Tees) and the lowest is 110 (Sudbrook Moor, Yellow Tees). So, of the 91 course, only 3 courses have a slope the same or lower as the "standard" (110, 111, 113), and the two that are lower are only marginally lower. So, in the large, it appears that golf courses, regardless of tees, are generally set up to be more difficult (bogey golfers relative to scratch golfers) compared to the "standard" difficulty as defined by the system. I assume this is standard across the UK, and not just a Lincolnshire thing? The average slope for courses in Lincolnshire is 131 off whites and 128 off yellows.

I can't even picture what a course would be like if the Slope was 55. I presume just one big field with no trees, bunkers, water or rough and big flat greens and short holes? What is the lowest Slope for a course that anyone is aware off? Can you beat the 110 from Sudbrook Moor Yellow Tees, and if you know the course is it very very easy?

 

[Swango1980]

Also, going back to a previous point I made about what handicap a player perceives they have (Index / Course / Playing), I wonder how people will define a single figure handicapper. I know it is the ultimate goal for many golfers, it was for me, to see if they can achieve single figure status. Is that obtained under WHS by achieving a Handicap Index of 9.4? Because, if so, I don't think that player will feel fulfilled in achieving their dream, given that when they actually play at their course (say it was at mine, slope 133) they would have a playing handicap pf 11.1 in match play and 10.5 in singles.

Conversely, a player at Woodhall Spa may not accept, or others may not accept, he has ever reached single figure status as his playing handicap has only gone to 9.5 (Index of 7.5). However, all he need do is go and play at any course with a slope of 149 or less, and then he can say he is finally a single figure handicapper (and if he went and played Sudbrook Moor off yellows all of a sudden he'd have a handicap of 7.3).

Consider an excellent player, with a handicap Index of -3.0. They play at Sudbrook Moore off yellow (easy course) and their handicap is -2.9. They then have to go and play Woodhall Spa Hotchkin off the blue tees (harder than white, Slope 152) and they then have to play off -4.0. That's right, they actually lose an extra shot at the hardest course in the county compared to the easiest. This is probably the clearest example that the WHS is more about providing a "fairer" difference in handicaps of good players in relation to poorer players, rather than just giving more shots to all players at harder courses.

Again, this point is not aimed at criticising fairness of the system, more to do with how average golfers may perceive it and how we can give them clear explanations.

 

[Swango1980]

Question: When we switch over to WHS, what will golfers generally find their handicap changes by, if at all? The reason I ask, is that I had an initial expectation, but since looking at the formula and processing 28 golfers from my club so far, it looks like I was wrong.

My initial expectation: The Handicap Index would effectively replace your CONGU handicap, and in general be fairly closely matched. Then depending on whether you played at an easier or harder course than the average, your Course Handicap would go down or up accordingly.

However, this might be true if the Index was only based on the gross score difference with CR. However, it is "desloped" by multiplying by 113/Slope. Given that most slope ratings are over 113 (in Lincolnshire anyway), then this will virtually always be a number less than 1. So, at my course with a slope of 133, the difference between the best 8 gross compared to CR out of the last 20 are averaged, then multiplied by 113/133 (i.e. 0.85, or 85%). However, this is then "resloped" again when working out the course handicap by multiplying by Slope / 113 (133/113). So, your course handicap is effectively your "unsloped" Course Index.

So, with WHS, which of the 3 handicaps (Index, Course, Playing - Singles Stroke) will be most comparable with your CONGU handicap? We will probably need to assume we are talking about golfers who play most of their CONGU qualifying rounds at the same course. Here is what I found with the 28 golfers at my course (looked at a range of CONGU handicaps from 4.9 to 28.8):

Index: Average Difference of -1.5 shots compared to CONGU, or 89.6% of CONGU
Course: Average Difference of +0.8 shots compared to CONGU, or 105.5% of CONGU
Playing: Average Difference of 0.0 shots compared to CONGU, or 100.2% of CONGU - Note: This assumed for singles strokeplay, and therefore 95% or Course Handicap

So, what this seems, or might conclude, is that:

It is the Playing Handicap (Singles Strokeplay) with WHS that will generally most likely replicate your CONGU handicap
In singles match play, where you use Course handicap (and not 95%), the higher handicapper in that match will get more of a benefit with WHS in comparison to CONGU (note, when I say advantage I only mean in terms of CONGU, not in relation to fairness)
If a golfer does go to a course with a higher slope, they genuinely will have more of an advantage in relation to CONGU, as their course handicap will increase compared to their home course. However, the difference will generally be subtle, will depend on where the decimal point lies and how low or high a handicap the player has. So, lower handicappers may see no benefit, with no increase to handicap (unless their own course handicap was x.4ish and close to going up), whereas higher handicappers are more likely to see their course / playing handicap increase at a harder course

Would this seem to be a reasonable summary?