CONGU, WHS and Rule E5

[duncan mackie]

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?

The stated expectations (at some point in some document) were that handicap indexes will increase on average in proportion to current handicap levels by under 10% from established CONGU levels. Vaguely remember an estimate of 1.5 shots increase for a bogey golfer.
This is purely arithmetically based on the difference between the bell curves across current calculations moving to 8/20 average basis.
Everything else is subsequent to that, based on other elements/factors.

 

[rulefan]

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.

The USGA coined the term which numerically describes the difference in course rating difficulty between bogey and scratch players as the "Slope Rating," which is a second dimension in handicapping. Slope Rating is the slope of a regression line of total score versus USGA Handicap for a particular golf course. The Y-intercept is the USGA Course Rating which is the better half score average of scratch golfers. The slope of the scores line of an average course has been observed to be 1.13 and USGA Slope Rating is referenced as 113 to deal in whole numbers.
A "Bogey Rating" is determined by evaluating the obstacle factors from the standpoint of the bogey golfer, and then by applying a linear yardage equation based on ability to overcome distance. The result is equivalent to the average of the better half of a bogey golfer's scores under normal playing conditions.
A "USGA Slope Rating" is determined by multiplying the difference between the Bogey Rating and the USGA Course Rating by 5.381. This constant will produce Slope Ratings of 113 when the differential between the Bogey Rating and Course Rating is 21.0. A Slope Rating of 113 also is the empirically derived average value on standard American golf courses.

The above is taken from http://popeofslope.com/courserating/twoparameter.html

But then read this

http://www.ongolfhandicaps.com/2014/07/why-is-113-in-slope-handicap-system.html

 

[jim8flog]

[QUOTE="Swango1980, post: 2079414, member: 26510" 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).

[/QUOTE]

When I attend the next meeting one of my questions will be

" How does a player self adjust?"

e.g a player plays a medal in the morning and plays to better than their handicap and then has a match in the afternoon.

 

[rulefan]

When I attend the next meeting one of my questions will be

" How does a player self adjust?"

e.g a player plays a medal in the morning and plays to better than their handicap and then has a match in the afternoon.[/QUOTE]

Interpretation 5.4/1 – Example Situation When Committee in Charge of a Competition May Adjust a Player’s Playing Handicap

In a situation where a player has performed exceptionally well in an authorized format of play during a morning round and is playing a competition round later the same day, as the player's Handicap Index will not be updated until the next day, the Committee in charge of the competition may decide to adjust the player's Playing Handicap.
The Committee should consider all of the information available before deciding whether to adjust the player’s Playing Handicap, including what impact the score may have had on the player's Handicap Index and whether the player would obtain any unfair advantage because their Handicap Index has not been updated.

 

[jim8flog]

When I attend the next meeting one of my questions will be

" How does a player self adjust?"

e.g a player plays a medal in the morning and plays to better than their handicap and then has a match in the afternoon.

Interpretation 5.4/1 – Example Situation When Committee in Charge of a Competition May Adjust a Player’s Playing Handicap

In a situation where a player has performed exceptionally well in an authorized format of play during a morning round and is playing a competition round later the same day, as the player's Handicap Index will not be updated until the next day, the Committee in charge of the competition may decide to adjust the player's Playing Handicap.
The Committee should consider all of the information available before deciding whether to adjust the player’s Playing Handicap, including what impact the score may have had on the player's Handicap Index and whether the player would obtain any unfair advantage because their Handicap Index has not been updated.[/QUOTE]

That is the committee adjusting not the player self adjusting!!

 

[Swango1980]

Interpretation 5.4/1 – Example Situation When Committee in Charge of a Competition May Adjust a Player’s Playing Handicap

In a situation where a player has performed exceptionally well in an authorized format of play during a morning round and is playing a competition round later the same day, as the player's Handicap Index will not be updated until the next day, the Committee in charge of the competition may decide to adjust the player's Playing Handicap.
The Committee should consider all of the information available before deciding whether to adjust the player’s Playing Handicap, including what impact the score may have had on the player's Handicap Index and whether the player would obtain any unfair advantage because their Handicap Index has not been updated.

That is the committee adjusting not the player self adjusting!![/QUOTE]
Perhaps the player is no longer responsible for adjusting their own handicap (after all, how could they?)

 

[rulefan]

There would appear to be no requirement to self adjust.

But unless the morning round was completely out of kilter, I would suggest with the 8/20 scheme, there would be no material difference. And that is where the committee would come in to it.

 

[jim8flog]

There would appear to be no requirement to self adjust.

But unless the morning round was completely out of kilter, I would suggest with the 8/20 scheme, there would be no material difference. And that is where the committee would come in to it.

This is not a personal dig at you but rather a rather tunnelled vision view of the authorities.

My question would then be -"What Committee?"

There seems to be this view that in the average club there are people waiting around in offices for players to come to them with their problems.

I doubt that our club has any different set up to most clubs. I chair our handicap committee, I am a volunteer as are most of my committee with just one employed person it. We meet at best once a month and at this time of year probably once every 2-3 months. I am often at the club and can resolve any issues left with the office within reasonable time. It does not mean that there is somebody at the club who can resolve issues such as the one I have brought up instantaneously.

 

[duncan mackie]

When I attend the next meeting one of my questions will be

" How does a player self adjust?"

e.g a player plays a medal in the morning and plays to better than their handicap and then has a match in the afternoon.

They don't (won't) - simples.

Currently most of the systems using an average work to a 2 week recalculation point - moving forwards under WHS this has been set to overnight.

That's it. No problem, no need for absent committees to get worried either.

The end.