Handicapping rules April 2024

[wjemather]

But for the last 3 years most could do these calculations from the mandatory slope boards either in their head or with a calculator on their phone, some did regularly - I never remember seeing any note or advice saying that calculations of % shot allowances must never be done, so some regularly did so.

If they do so now (from1/4) from the new numbers that might, in many clubs, be still displayed in the same fashion there is a possibility that they will come up with a different number due to the rounding, despite their maths being right - they need to be advised not to now.

Right from the beginning the official line has been (ignoring mixed tee adjustments): play according to your course handicap and let the software take care of competition results. That isn't changing.

There is no doubt that a better job needs to be done of getting clear and precise messages across to players (and in some cases, handicap committee members).

 

[Voyager EMH]

Most of the golf that is played is not in club competitions using software.
It is pairs or groups of people playing together in various formats and using handicaps.
If they want to use machine precision software, they may.
If they want to do calculations themselves, they may - who is going to stop them?
If they want to do some kind of system of their own design, they may.
And they will - all of the above.

 

[Wabinez]

4BBB matchplay will use the rounded CH of each player, with an allowance of 90% of the difference between the lowest player and others.

I could be being dumb, but this is a change isn't it?

We were led to believe you took your CH, then 90%, and then it was 100% of the difference. The vast majority of the time, the end result is the same....but there have been discrepencies

 

[Backsticks]

Right from the beginning the official line has been (ignoring mixed tee adjustments): play according to your course handicap and let the software take care of competition results. That isn't changing.

There is no doubt that a better job needs to be done of getting clear and precise messages across to players (and in some cases, handicap committee members).

If anything depends on getting a clear message to players, then the cause is lost and WHS has failed. It is simply too complex. Not that it is too complex for anyone who wants to get to grips with to do so. But too high a complexity effort threshold for people to bother doing so. It just isnt going to happen.

We have got three things badly wrong here :
- WHS is too complex to use. No issue if its your job, or you are a well motivated club handicap secretary, or, you are a golf handicap nerd. That doesnt cover 0.1% of golfers.

- the cock up of deciding to put our own local spin on WHS. Totally undermining the illusion that it was an all world one system. So confusion reigns.

- compounding the cock up by changing it so soon, in a way that in no way solves the problems, but makes it even more confusing.

 

[wjemather]

Most of the golf that is played is not in club competitions using software.
It is pairs or groups of people playing together in various formats and using handicaps.
If they want to use machine precision software, they may.
If they want to do calculations themselves, they may - who is going to stop them?
If they want to do some kind of system of their own design, they may.
And they will - all of the above.

I'm certain that the vast majority would rather just make their golf a lot simpler by not doing any of these things.

 

[BiMGuy]

Most of the golf that is played is not in club competitions using software.
It is pairs or groups of people playing together in various formats and using handicaps.
If they want to use machine precision software, they may.
If they want to do calculations themselves, they may - who is going to stop them?
If they want to do some kind of system of their own design, they may.
And they will - all of the above.

Won’t most people playing a casual game just look up their course handicap and use that?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Won’t most people playing a casual game just look up their course handicap and use that?

I really don't know what most people will do.
I do know that there will be many variations on themes actually occurring.

 

[BiMGuy]

I really don't know what most people will do.
I do know that there will be many variations on themes actually occurring.

I expect there will. But for casual golf it doesn’t really matter.

 

[wjemather]

If anything depends on getting a clear message to players, then the cause is lost and WHS has failed. It is simply too complex. Not that it is too complex for anyone who wants to get to grips with to do so. But too high a complexity effort threshold for people to bother doing so. It just isnt going to happen.

We have got three things badly wrong here :
- WHS is too complex to use. No issue if its your job, or you are a well motivated club handicap secretary, or, you are a golf handicap nerd. That doesnt cover 0.1% of golfers.

- the cock up of deciding to put our own local spin on WHS. Totally undermining the illusion that it was an all world one system. So confusion reigns.

- compounding the cock up by changing it so soon, in a way that in no way solves the problems, but makes it even more confusing.

The message has been butchered and complicated by people with insufficient understanding, and intentionally distorted by people with their own agendas.

1. WHS is actually very simple to use - know your index, lookup your Course Handicap, play golf, input scores, let software take care of the rest.

2. How golf is played varies around the world - there is no one-size fits all approach, so options within the system are necessary to allow local authorities to tailor it to best fit their jurisdiction.

3. Handicap systems evolve and some of the changes are new for everyone globally. However, not including CR-Par from the start has been described and accepted by the GB&I authorities as an error.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I'm certain that the vast majority would rather just make their golf a lot simpler by not doing any of these things.

How on earth will they not calculate handicaps when they want to use handicaps to play with and against each other?
They will have to do something.
eg Read from a chart which they will have to locate, calculate 90% of difference for three players etc.
The vast majority WILL have to do one of these things.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Par 70, CR 69.1 and SR 127.

Singles comp will be = ((HI x 1.124) - 0.9) x 0.95

But I must never attempt this myself, but rely on software to do it for me.
I have been told and don't need telling again.
I will comply.
Resistance is futile.

You rounded 127/113 to 3 decimal places in the middle of the calculation.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I expect there will. But for casual golf it doesn’t really matter.

It matters a lot to players for whom casual golf is by far and away their main hobby.

 

[Voyager EMH]

You rounded 127/113 to 3 decimal places in the middle of the calculation.

Yes, a bit excessive maybe.
Do you think 2 decimal places might be enough?
I mean, Score Differentials to one decimal place is deemed enough, despite the obvious rounding errors that occur.

 

[BiMGuy]

It matters a lot to players for whom casual golf is by far and away their main hobby.

OK. So what is the problem with just using their CH if it’s not in a comp?

I have never played a casual round with anyone who has used anything else. Not to my knowledge anyway.

 

[wjemather]

How on earth will they not calculate handicaps when they want to use handicaps to play with and against each other?
They will have to do something.
eg Read from a chart which they will have to locate, calculate 90% of difference for three players etc.
The vast majority WILL have to do one of these things.

Know index, lookup Course Handicap (using a chart, app, etc.), play golf. Simple.

Apply 90% of the difference if they so wish - but that isn't massively overcomplicating anything in the manner you describe.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Yes, a bit excessive maybe.
Do you think 2 decimal places might be enough?
I mean, Score Differentials to one decimal place is deemed enough, despite the obvious rounding errors that occur.

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what the rounding is. But it should be defined where rounding takes place and how numbers are stored in the databases. And it all should be consistent and published.

 

[Voyager EMH]

OK. So what is the problem with just using their CH if it’s not in a comp?

I have never played a casual round with anyone who has used anything else. Not to my knowledge anyway.

I don't know what problem you are referring to. So I am unable to answer your question.
Casual golf, in my experience, requires players to play off the correct Playing Handicap for the chosen format of play. But I have witnessed many variations on this and I strongly suspect that will continue.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Know index, lookup Course Handicap (using a chart, app, etc.), play golf. Simple.

Apply 90% of the difference if they so wish - but that isn't massively overcomplicating anything in the manner you describe.

Even simpler for me on many occasions.

Get to first tee with 2 other players. Play golf. No competition, no handicaps needed. Casual golf for enjoyment and practice.

 

[Voyager EMH]

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter what the rounding is. But it should be defined where rounding takes place and how numbers are stored in the databases. And it all should be consistent and published.

Well, as the SR figure is 3 sig figs, I thought that converting this to a multiplier with 3 decimal places would have the same degree of precision as the SR itself.

Whites and yellows for my course are 132 and 127.
So I have memorised 1.168 and 1.124. They are going to start 1.1 so I just remember 68 and 24. Which is just as easy as remembering 132 and 127.

 

[BiMGuy]

Even simpler for me on many occasions.

Get to first tee with 2 other players. Play golf. No competition, no handicaps needed. Casual golf for enjoyment and practice.

This is exactly what we do.

I am genuinely perplexed that some people find it all too difficult to work out.