Course h/c

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Mathematically it is best to not round more than once and certainly not in the middle of a calculation.

This is a club in Scotland...

So for me, on my course,
5.0 × 128 ÷ 113 = 5.66... (6)
for course hcp.

In a 95% competition
5.0 × 128 ÷ 113 × 0.95 = 5.38... (5)
for playing hcp.

The fact we have 95% in comps is the one that really baffles me.

But surely you don’t actually do the course hcap calculation. It’s done for you and is tabulated HI vs CH.

 

[KenL]

But surely you don’t actually do the course hcap calculation. It’s done for you and is tabulated HI vs CH.

That's right. The software they use for doing the scoring does it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

That's right. The software they use for doing the scoring does it.

Ok…but I’m still really confused and think that I am missing something.

Because what you are saying seems to be that my PH for the format I am playing, and that I can calculate quite easily in my head, might not be the same as that which the software calculates because the software calculates a revised CH for the format. Nah. Surely that’s not right and I’m missing something.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Ok…but I’m still really confused and think that I am missing something.

Because what you are saying seems to be that my PH for the format I am playing, and that I can calculate quite easily in my head, might not be the same as that which the software calculates because the software calculates a revised CH for the format. Nah. Surely that’s not right and I’m missing something.

England and Scotland use different methods that produce different results when going from HI to PH.
Scotland do not round the CH to a whole number.
They only do rounding after the 95% has been done.

 

[rulefan]

Unless I (and my club) have got the wrong end of the stick, you seem to be saying players are expected to actually work out a Course Handicap from their HI if they are playing a format that does not give a player their full handicap - and that just cannot be correct. We do not carry calculators about.

In Scotland, that is exactly what you are required to do.

The US does not seem to involve an unrounded CH (or at least no mention in the USGA Manual)

Australia have a different process where there there is only one number called the Daily Handicap (ie no CH or PH)
Example
A player’s GA Handicap (HI) is 15.2; Slope 124; Scratch (Course) Rating 72; Par 70.
The WHS Daily Handicap is:
Apply the Slope Rating to the GA Handicap: 15.2 x (124÷113) = 16.68 (ie unrounded)
Add the difference between Scratch Rating and Par: + (72-70) = 18.68
Apply the 0.93 Multiplier: x 0.93 = 17.37
And then round the result to get the Daily Handicap: 17.37 rounds to 17

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In Scotland, that is exactly what you are required to do.

The US does not seem to involve an unrounded CH and Australia have a different process where there there is only one number called the Daily Handicap

That’s stupid. So if I am Scotland playing say, 4BBB stableford, I calculate a PH by first taking 85% of my HI of 8.5 and factoring that according to the slope of the course I am playing. Nuts!

 

[KenL]

That’s stupid. So if I am Scotland playing say, 4BBB stableford, I have to calculate a CH by first taking 85% of my HI of 8.5 and factoring that according to the slope of the course I am playing. Nuts!

In Scotland my CH is 6. 95% of 6 = 5.7, which rounds to 6.
On my printed card for comps it says ch 6, pH 5.

 

[KenL]

Nothing that is mathematically correct is stupid.

That’s stupid. So if I am Scotland playing say, 4BBB stableford, I calculate a PH by first taking 85% of my HI of 8.5 and factoring that according to the slope of the course I am playing. Nuts!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In Scotland my CH is 6. 95% of 6 = 5.7, which rounds to 6.
On my printed card for comps it says ch 6, pH 5.

But then you are doing the 95% twice…once to get a CH, then a second time (?) to get your PH - but 95% of 6 is not 5

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Nothing that is mathematically correct is stupid.

Not the maths that’s stupid…it’s the process. My course handicap should surely be determined by my HI and should be independent of format. My playing handicap is then determined by format.

Anyway…thank goodness the maths is much simpler in England and that at any time I only have one CH for my home track.

 

[Voyager EMH]

That’s stupid. So if I am Scotland playing say, 4BBB stableford, I have to calculate a CH by first taking 85% of my HI of 8.5 and factoring that according to the slope of the course I am playing. Nuts!

You apply slope to the HI first of all.
Then you calculate 85% for betterball strokeplay.

But yes, you can do 85% first then SR/113 as it will produce the same result. But only in Scotland.

But then you are doing the 95% twice…once to get a CH, then a second time to get your PH - but 95% of 6 is not 5

No, it is applying 95% once only.

His CH is 6, rounded from 5.7. No 95% has been applied at this point.

In Scotland 95% is applied to the non-rounded CH.
So 95% of 5.7 is 5.415.
This gives a PH of 5.

In Scotland you can be CH 6 and PH 5 for individual strokeplay.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

You apply slope to the HI first of all.
Then you calculate 85% for betterball strokeplay.

But yes, you can do 85% first then SR/113 as it will produce the same result. But only in Scotland.


No, it is applying 95% once only.

His CH is 6, rounded from 5.7. No 95% has been applied at this point.

In Scotland 95% is applied to the non-rounded CH.
So 95% of 5.7 is 5.415.
This gives a PH of 5.

In Scotland you can be CH 6 and PH 5 for individual strokeplay.

But how does the ordinary guy or gal actually work out all of this to three DPs in practice. For a start I guess the exact CH is provided by the club tabulated against HI. I guess I would just know my CH 5% increment and work things out using multiples of that.

 

[rulefan]

Scotland appears to be the odd one out.

The US does not seem to involve an unrounded CH (or at least no mention in the USGA Manual)

But Australia has a completely different process where there there is only one number called the Daily Handicap (ie no CH or PH). Handicap Allowance is not used.
Example
A player’s GA Handicap (HI) is 15.2; Slope 124; Scratch (Course) Rating 72; Par 70.
The WHS Daily Handicap is:
Apply the Slope Rating to the GA Handicap: 15.2 x (124÷113) = 16.68 (ie unrounded)
Add the difference between Scratch Rating and Par: + (72-70) = 18.68
Apply the 0.93 Multiplier: x 0.93 = 17.37
And then round the result to get the Daily Handicap: 17.37 rounds to 17

The Daily Handicap formula will include an adjustment when the Scratch Rating is different to the Par. (ie CR-Par)
For example:
Scratch Rating 73, Par 70 – Daily Handicaps will increase by 3* (ie 73 - 70 = +3);
Scratch Rating 68, Par 70 – Daily Handicaps will decrease by 2* (ie 68 - 70 = -2).
Note: *the Daily Handicap calculation usually produces a number with multiple decimal places, which is then rounded to a whole number; in some cases the rounding will soften the impact of the adjustment by 1.

 

[Voyager EMH]

But how does the ordinary guy or gal actually work out all of this in practice. For a start I guess the exact CH is provided by the club.

I don't know.
Not been to Scotland since the start of WHS.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

S

Scotland appears to be the odd one out.

The US does not seem to involve an unrounded CH (or at least no mention in the USGA Manual)

But Australia has a completely different process where there there is only one number called the Daily Handicap (ie no CH or PH). Handicap Allowance is not used.
Example
A player’s GA Handicap (HI) is 15.2; Slope 124; Scratch (Course) Rating 72; Par 70.
The WHS Daily Handicap is:
Apply the Slope Rating to the GA Handicap: 15.2 x (124÷113) = 16.68 (ie unrounded)
Add the difference between Scratch Rating and Par: + (72-70) = 18.68
Apply the 0.93 Multiplier: x 0.93 = 17.37
And then round the result to get the Daily Handicap: 17.37 rounds to 17

Surely most of this is provided in tabulated form and a player doesn’t have to work it all out (What is the 0.93 multiplier…I guess the format adjustment)

 

[Voyager EMH]

S

Surely most of this is provided in tabulated form and a player doesn’t have to work it all out (What is the 0.93 multiplier…I guess the format adjustment)

Australia use 93% in the way we use 95%
Their "Daily Handicap" is their handicap for individual strokeplay.

They have only to think about their HI and their playing handicap for individual strokeplay. No such thing as CH in Australia.

The main issue of this thread does not arise in Australia, it would seem.
Perhaps that is a good thing for ordinary guy and gal.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Australia use 93% in the way we use 95%
Their "Daily Handicap" is their handicap for individual strokeplay.

They have only to think about their HI and their playing handicap for individual strokeplay. No such thing as CH in Australia.

The main issue of this thread does not arise in Australia, it would seem.
Perhaps that is a good thing for ordinary guy and gal.

Don’t think there is any real issue in England either. The process and arithmetic seem logical and simple…to me anyway.

I have one HI; the club I am at provides me with my CH for the course I am playing; I apply a simple factoring (multiples of 5% aka 1/20th) to that CH; rounding up or down to give me my PH. Done.

 

[rulefan]

S

Surely most of this is provided in tabulated form and a player doesn’t have to work it all out (What is the 0.93 multiplier…I guess the format adjustment)

The 0.93 is what is sometimes call 'Bonus for Excellence'. Australia used it prior to WHS. The US also had it (but I think it was 95%). The 95% CH to PH for competition play is supposed to do the same job. ie give a small bonus to lower handicappers.
You will note that Handicap Allowances are only recommended and relate to non handicap play but in Oz it is built in to the Daily Handicap.


As an aside but re (CR-Par).
I am given to understand the virtually all play in Australia id played as Stableford. If so I must admit I would find GA's explanation pretty persuasive.
Adjustment to Daily Handicap formula when Scratch Rating is different to Par
Why the change?
Have you ever heard someone ask: “So, if I have 36 points, will that mean I’ve played to my handicap?” To which the answer is: “well, it kind of depends on whether there’s a difference between the Scratch Rating and the par……”?
Well we’ve heard plenty of feedback that this is confusing…… And the simple change happening under the WHS means 36 Stableford points will become the universal measure of whether a player has played to their handicap. Regardless of the course or set of tees.
What is another key benefit?
Comparing results in multi-tee and mixed-gender competitions will be made simple – we’ve also heard the feedback on this and we know the current complexities are a barrier for many clubs. The change will help to drive game participation and engagement initiatives. It will also make it easier for clubs to manage their legal risk around compliance with the 1984 Federal sex discrimination law (see the Australian Human Rights Commission publication titled ‘Guidelines for the promotion of equal opportunity for women and girls in golf’ – www.golf.org.au/equality-guidelines).
So what is the actual change?
The Daily Handicap formula will include an adjustment when the Scratch Rating is different to the Par. For example: Scratch Rating 73, Par 70 – Daily Handicaps will increase by 3* (ie 73 - 70 = +3); Scratch Rating 68, Par 70 – Daily Handicaps will decrease by 2* (ie 68 - 70 = -2). Note: *the Daily Handicap calculation usually produces a number with multiple decimal places, which is then rounded to a whole number; in some cases the rounding will soften the impact of the adjustment by 1.

 

[jim8flog]

Thankyou , so guy I was playing with has a handicap index of 14.7 and course handicap of 15 but when results came in his handicap is still 15 I’m slightly confused with why his handicap didn’t come down to 14.

14.7 HI giving a CH of 15 Does the course have a very low slope rating then.

Where I play 14.7 HI goes to 16 CH
x.95 = 15 PH

 

[jim8flog]

Just seen you have posted the Slope Table.