Handicapping rules April 2024

[NearHull]

Just out of curiosity I have checked my individual competition PH using the iG (eaglegolf) calculator, and for my 7.4 off White tees I have a CH of 8 (same as it was) and a 95% PH of 7 What am I missing. How is 7 95% of 8?

I haven’t done the sums but isn’t the difference due to machine precision calculation versus rounded CH. ie single rounding versus double rounding.

 

[IanMcC]

My understanding is that it is primarily about proportional handicap representation in larger fields.
It was already part of the USGA (96%) and GA (93%) systems (often referred to as a 'bonus for excellence') but EG say that it was 'built in' to the old UHS and not seen.
Can anyone explain just where it was 'hidden'?

My thought, probably incorrect, was that the percentage drop was done at source under UHS, when 93% of the best Initial Handicap score was allocated, not 100%.

 

[D-S]

Just out of curiosity I have checked my individual competition PH using the iG (eaglegolf) calculator, and for my 7.4 off White tees I have a CH of 8 (same as it was) and a 95% PH of 7 What am I missing. How is 7 95% of 8?

Because your CH is not 8, your CH is actually an unrounded number - without doing the maths I would suggest it is somewhere between just below 7.9 and 7.5 - rounded you have seen 8 but it isn’t rounded in the calc so 95% of it is 7.
This is exactly why having boards showing rounded 100% CH is a bad idea.

 

[wjemather]

My understanding is that it is primarily about proportional handicap representation in larger fields.
It was already part of the USGA (96%) and GA (93%) systems (often referred to as a 'bonus for excellence') but EG say that it was 'built in' to the old UHS and not seen.
Can anyone explain just where it was 'hidden'?

It was part of the initial handicap calculation (LAGD x 1.13/1.237) with the result truncated.
On an ongoing basis, it was effected by means of graduated reductions - 0.1 for cat 1, 0.2 for cat 2, etc., larger buffers for higher handicaps, and uniform 0.1 increases. Combined, these mechanisms generally kept low handicaps higher and high handicaps slightly lower; thus, effecting a 'bonus for excellence' - i.e. better players enjoyed a small advantage in handicap competitions.

 

[wjemather]

Because your CH is not 8, your CH is actually an unrounded number -

Their CH is indisputably 8. All officially sanctioned software, apps, lookup charts, etc. will confirm it as being 8.
The unrounded value being used in PH calculations doesn't change that.

 

[Swango1980]

It was part of the initial handicap calculation (LAGD x 1.13/1.237) with the result truncated.
On an ongoing basis, it was effected by means of graduated reductions - 0.1 for cat 1, 0.2 for cat 2, etc., larger buffers for higher handicaps, and uniform 0.1 increases. Combined, these mechanisms generally kept low handicaps higher and high handicaps slightly lower; thus, effecting a 'bonus for excellence' - i.e. better players enjoyed a small advantage in handicap competitions.

If the equation was "LAGD x 1.13/1.237", why did they not just simplify it to "LAGD x 0.914"?

Did the 1.13 and 1.237 have any specific meanings?

 

[D-S]

Their CH is indisputably 8. All officially sanctioned software, apps, lookup charts, etc. will confirm it as being 8.
The unrounded value being used in PH calculations doesn't change that.

If it is 8 why is 95% of it 7?

 

[Swango1980]

If it is 8 why is 95% of it 7?

Because WHS is super simple and causes no confusion?

 

[wjemather]

If the equation was "LAGD x 1.13/1.237", why did they not just simplify it to "LAGD x 0.914"?

Did the 1.13 and 1.237 have any specific meanings?

I've actually simplified it from the manual, which stated:
Initial Handicap = (LAGD + (LAGD*0.13))/ 1.237 truncated to provide a whole number.

They were simply the values that had been determined would produce the fairest initial handicap in most cases (the committee having discretion to allot a lower or, in exceptions cases higher, handicap).

 

[wjemather]

If it is 8 why is 95% of it 7?

You know how the calculation works.

 

[D-S]

If it is 8 why is 95% of it 7?

If it is 8 why do EG describe the two player's Course Handicaps, in their own document as unrounded numbers?

Norman and Norma both have a Handicap Index of 15.0. Using the formula C.H. = (HI x SLOPE/113) + (CR – Par), the Course Handicaps of Norman and Norma are:
Norman: (15.0 x 113 / 113) + (67.2 – 70) = 15.0 + (-2.8) = 12.2
Norma: (15.0 x (129 / 113) + (72.0 – 71) = 17.124 + 1 = 18.124

It would be sensible to give this unrounded number a different name but nevertheless the term used is Course Handicap. Or if not, maybe when it is being used to calculate PH give the unrounded number to avoid exactly this confusion which no doubt is and will be repeated across the country.

 

[D-S]

You know how the calculation works.

I do but patently experienced golfers do not.

 

[Alan Clifford]

1 day later: The score differential on England Golf matched what I understand the new, 9 hole algorithm to be Well, at least the rounded to 1 dp version did

Another day later:

Email from howdidido. Handicap index down to 24.9. Front 9 course handicap 12. Wrong. Checked my calcualtions on the EG app and it should be 13.

Had the ficticious 9 holes added on used the old algorithm, I'd be 24.8 which would have produced the 12 for the next front 9.

They'll all get there in the end I expect.

 

[wjemather]

I do but patently experienced golfers do not.

Golfers don't need to know how the calculation works.

The key information they need to know is that they can no longer manually calculate their Playing Handicaps for stroke play competitions from their Course Handicaps (as given by charts, apps, etc.).
Further detail regarding the calculations is secondary to that message.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Golfers don't need to know how the calculation works.

The key information they need to know is that they can no longer manually calculate their Playing Handicaps for stroke play competitions from their Course Handicaps (as given by charts, apps, etc.).
Further detail regarding the calculations is secondary to that message.

I couldn't find a playing handicap calculator on the England Golf app nor on the HowDidiDo app.

 

[IanMcC]

My thought, probably incorrect, was that the percentage drop was done at source under UHS, when 93% of the best Initial Handicap score was allocated, not 100%.

Apologies. 91.4%. It's been a while.

 

[IanMcC]

I couldn't find a playing handicap calculator on the England Golf app nor on the HowDidiDo app.

The best one I have seen is provided on this forum by a member. Probably this thread in fact.

 

[nickjdavis]

Today
check club website
check the IG app
check the PSI terminal
All fine

mmm...we've just moved over to IG last week.

Although I have a singles match scheduled and the IG app shows me correctly having a CH of 9 for the match, when I enter the "calculator" in the handicap record of the App, it tells me my CH is 11 !!! (which it was before Cr-Par was implemented)....cant believe that the same App can give two different results in different parts of the app!!!

 

[wjemather]

I couldn't find a playing handicap calculator on the England Golf app nor on the HowDidiDo app.

The MyEG app is for General Play only, so there won't be anything there.

I was led to believe there will be something on HowDidiDo, but maybe it merely advises Playing Handicaps when signed into comps.

IG have provided a handicap calculator, accessible via the app, website and touchscreens, that works for most common formats.

 

[BiMGuy]

I couldn't find a playing handicap calculator on the England Golf app nor on the HowDidiDo app.

Course Handicap Calculator

The R&A seeks to engage in and support activities for the benefit of the sport of golf from The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews.

www.randa.org

This has an option to calculate a % of CH