rulie
Head Pro
The Rules of golf say that it is the Committee's responsibility to decide which score counts, including applying handicap strokes and that there is no penalty for entering more than one partner's score on the scorecard.
It isn't a RoG issue.The Rules of golf say that it is the Committee's responsibility to decide which score counts, including applying handicap strokes and that there is no penalty for entering more than one partner's score on the scorecard.
4BBB is covered in the new guidance - only the counting score should be recorded on each hole.
But this is a Rules of golf forum.It isn't a RoG issue.
I have suggested to the mods that there should be separate WHS and RoG forums.But this is a Rules of golf forum.
I would make a couple of points; EG are keen for players to play and enter 9 hole scores as they believe these are more attractive to busy people (this hasn't been borne out by current returns). Secondly, I think we continue to distance players from understanding how their handicap is calculated. This may be irrelevant for many but some people like to understand how things work. As more elements become proprietary (secret) this is impossible to do. I would query why so much is becoming proprietary unless the authorities have ambitions to become a software vendor.Ahhh, so same same, but different. No dramas. I think I have submitted about 3 9 hole scores in the entirety of WHS, so all good.
I want to know more about the 4BBB scoring adjustments, but I also do believe in the ‘Trust the Computer’ theory.
Would this mean that lower handicappers are more likely to play close to net par for holes not played and higher indexes further away from net par for those holes? And, if so, further away from par higher or lower?I guess it will be very similar to the PCC algorithm, player's likeliest score based of previous history..
I guess soWould this mean that lower handicappers are more likely to play close to net par for holes not played and higher indexes further away from net par for those holes?
No ideaAnd, if so, further away from par higher or lower?
I assume net par plus 1 for scaling up the back 9 was quite penal on a scratch golfer but given the wider variation of scores not so much for a 30 handicapper.I guess so
No idea
To me, this is where ridiculous guidance is made up simply to try and fiddle something in WHS to make it work more seamlessly (maybe like when the laws of football change to try and make VAR work).The advice (from the 2024 Guidance on the rules of Handicapping) to committees is:-
"The standard approach to Fourball competition should continue to be used – as soon as the best score has been recorded, the other player should pick up in order not to impact pace of play. Handicap Committees will be justified in disregarding scores for handicapping purposes where scores for both players are recorded on a significant number of holes on a regular basis.'
Does this mean that the 9 hole Slope and Course Ratings will be removed? If not, what is stopping people submitting 9 hole rounds on a rated course?Just listened to the above. Mostly stuff that had been released but a couple of points I hadn't appreciated (if I understood them correctly).
First, the ability to harmonise par is only within genders. Thus we could adjust our red tee par for men and our yellow tee par for women but not across the board.
Second, it appears the days of 9 hole scores counting for handicap are coming to an end. You can still play and submit a 9 hole score but the score differential will be calculated using your score plus an estimated score for the other 9. The estimation will use a proprietary formula (again) that will scale-up the score based on the performance of people with the same HI across all scores in WHS.
I was also a bit cool about the continued push to go to fully digital scoring to "improve the customer experience".
Maybe it's me but I always get a bit nervous when organisations say "trust the computer".
Just seems crazy. You could have a high handicapped partner that could score 3,4 or 5 points (and God forbid even more), on a good number of holes. As their partner, you could also be having a great round, but only managing 2 points when they score 3, 3 points when they score 4 or even a birdie for 4 points when they might even get 5 (or they could still get 4, but the team decide to use their score instead of yours). Yet in all these occasions, you only get 1.5 points.
Thanks, that’s the one I posted the link to last night but I couldn’t get the picture to upload.
No, I'm guessing the expectation is that the resultant score differentials will be higher and so less likely to be counting scores.Does this mean that the 9 hole Slope and Course Ratings will be removed? If not, what is stopping people submitting 9 hole rounds on a rated course?
Sorry wjemather, I have read this a few times and still dont understand it in relation to my question. My failing.No, I'm guessing the expectation is that the resultant score differentials will be higher and so less likely to be counting scores.
That isn't what is happening. As far as the player is concerned - with respect to playing and submitting scores - nothing is changing.Sorry wjemather, I have read this a few times and still dont understand it in relation to my question. My failing.
Many elderly players at my club only play in our Friday 9 hole stableford, and never set foot on the back 9. How can their 18 hole differential be estimated by the software? (If I am understanding this correctly.)
Why on earth are the authorities trying to scare off some of the very people that the introduction of 9 hole ratings by WHS have encouraged to play more?