rulefan
Tour Winner
An interesting article by Dean Knuth, the 'Pope of Slope'
https://www.popeofslope.com/world-handicap-system.html
https://www.popeofslope.com/world-handicap-system.html
(CR - Par)
- Thread starter rulefan
- Start date
D-S
Well-known member
That‘s truly a man who is not a fan of the WHS.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Actually he IS a fan of the basic system - as he should be because he 'invented' it!
It's the specific USGA implementation of it that he's not a fan of - and I'm inclined (actually more than that) to agree with him. Par is a 'random' stat and shouldn't be included in H'cap calc!
Same actually applies to some details of other national implementations. These mean it's NOT a World Handicap System for me - just a set of Handicap Systems based on 'Slope'. Even between Scotland and England/Wales, there are differences that mean HIs aren't 'internationally compatible', which was a primary purpose of WHS.
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
I don't think the differences affect the original objectives but I think this is the most troublesome one to me.
The World Handicap System has three main objectives: (i) to encourage as many golfers as
possible to obtain and maintain a handicap; (ii) to enable golfers of differing abilities, genders
and nationalities to take their handicap to any course in the world and compete on a fair basis;
and (iii) to indicate with sufficient accuracy the score a golfer is reasonably capable of achieving
on any course around the world, playing under normal conditions.
I can see why Australia was so keen but for a country with no real history with stableford it seems perverse.
Last edited:
Colin L
Tour Winner
I am no fan of CR-Par either, but there is no difference in the calculation of handicap indexes amongst the CONGU countries. None of the components of the the calculation differs from one country to another.
Last edited:
Foxholer
Blackballed
Stableford is pretty widespread in Aus - quite possibly the most common scoring method. Certainly the norm when I played there, though maybe not a standard sample.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I sit corrected then! I thought I read there were some (subtle) differences. No t in the actual calculation of HI (badly worded), on some of the calcs/adjustments that affect the scores from which it's calculated.
rulefan
Tour Winner
I think it is only the non-rounding of CH before calculating the PH.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Ah, that's certainly one of them - and may indeed be the only one.
I just find it a bit hypocritical calling it a 'World' system if it works differently in the various parts of the world!
Colin L
Tour Winner
It's the only on I can think of and it only impacts on playing handicap for a competition and plays no part in the subsequent handicap index recalculation.
wjemather
Well-known member
The fundamentals are the same, and the resultant HIs are comparable (since the effect of jurisdictional differences on the average of differentials is extremely insignificant). That is all that really matters.
Foxholer
Blackballed
It's the fact that they are different that's the issue, for me. If the differentials are truly 'extremely insignificant' why be different?! Egos? Nationalism?
Last edited:
wjemather
Well-known member
There are many factors that have a far greater effect on differentials than jurisdictional differences that directly affect the calculation; e.g. SI allocation (which affects NDB adjustments). Biggest of all is the golf course itself (including weather), which varies from day to day, hour to hour.
Even combined, the effect of all these factors is insufficient to make the resultant HIs incomparable, or CHs or PHs inequitable.
Foxholer
Blackballed
I still ask the question - why actually have a difference if 'the effect of all these factors is insufficient to make the resultant HIs incomparable, or CHs or PHs inequitable' across countries! Just agree a 'standard' method that all countries can agree to. The Weather variation is nothing to do with National variation, albeit another debateable 'factor'.
salfordlad
Well-known member
Why? Because getting the separate jurisdictions in the "United Kingdom" to agree precisely on anything is an unattainable cat herding exercise.
wjemather
Well-known member
Let alone all jurisdictions globally.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Probably, but other parts of Golf - like Rules - can 'get it done' simply enough. But then on of the orgs in tht area (USGA) is the one Knuth is criticising.
Too many large egos in a, supposedly, ego-free-ish pastime!
rulie
Head Pro
It's not just individual egos, it is also national egos. Some national organizations may have been dragged into it reluctantly. The Rules of golf have (almost) essentially been universal since 1951-52 (first Joint Rules Committee meetings). Handicapping has just begun. With current communication technology, I'd expect handicapping to move faster than the Rules did. But.... egos could interfere.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Those (national ones) were the ones I was actually referring to.
rulie
Head Pro
And there are many more national orgs at the R&A table. The USGA only deal directly with USA and Mexico.
