Official WHS Survey

[AussieKB]

I'm confused. In Australia, do all golf clubs simply ignore the Playing Allowance table in the Australia Golf's WHS Manual? Does the software make it easy to adjust the allowances for different events?

As far as I'm aware, in the UK all the software automatically uses the multiplier recommended for that type of event. I'd have thought the software in Australia would be set up to do exactly the same, so there would be no decision to make by those who set up comps.

Correct, it is done by computer, only in match play it is not.....we play what ever the computer gives for Daily Allowance, we do not then use 90% etc for 4BBB match play, which is very rarely played except amongst your 4 on the day, then it is 100% difference.

How varied my handicap is, I am exactly 4.4 at the moment, at my home courses I will play off 3 on Wednesday, then 2 on Thursday at my other home club.

If I played a Seniors event in Perth tomorrow I would be off a 6 handicap, but if I went to another course I played last year I would be off scratch.

 

[D-S]

It seems as if the Australian experience is making a very good case for the mandatory Playing Handicap allowance set down by England Golf.

 

[AussieKB]

So what % of your CH do you use for individual strokeplay for example then? Do you use your Daily Handicap (93%) or 100% as per the table?
Similarly with 2 out of 4 strokeplay, 85% of your Daily Handicap or 85% of your full Course Handiacp as per the ta

The WHS (OZ Version) for an 18 hole daily handicap

((GA Handicap x Slope rating divided by 113) + (Scratch rating minus Par)) x 93.

This is used for just about everything.

 

[Swango1980]

The WHS (OZ Version) for an 18 hole daily handicap

((GA Handicap x Slope rating divided by 113) + (Scratch rating minus Par)) x 93.

This is used for just about everything.

I hope you meant 0.93, otherwise a person with a GA Handicap of 20.0, on a course with Slope 113 and Scratch Rating=Par would have a daily handicap of 1,860. If that was true, I get why you are annoyed as a lower handicapper

 

[AussieKB]

My mistake......but it seems like it sometimes.

 

[Backache]

Well, it certainly suits the lower handicap members. Not so much the higher ones.

You miss the point. I don't know if they genuinely do or do not but a National sporting governing body should not be behaving like tin pot demagogues threatening unpleasant phone calls or expulsions from an organisation for fairly minor local adjustments which do not impinge upon the external validity of the handicapping system.
They should look to the integrity of the game not their own self importance.

 

[Dunesman]

Well, it certainly suits the lower handicap members. Not so much the higher ones.

I think its just levelling the field for these particular, trophy-only type competitions, rather than disadvantaging lower handicaps as WHS acknowledges the 0.95 factor does. Their argument that lower handicappers will have more high finishes, if not wins, does not apply to these cases, so a genuinely equal chance is more appropriate. If EG has a problem with it, they need to acknowledge that one size doesnt fit all, and be more flexible.
In the case of the 9 hole comps, yes, its a distortion that doesnt advantage or disadvantage any particular range, but spreads prizes a little more for very low key fun competitions. Everyone is happy with it, and certainly, nobody is going to complain to county about it.

 

[D-S]

I think its just levelling the field for these particular, trophy-only type competitions, rather than disadvantaging lower handicaps as WHS acknowledges the 0.95 factor does. Their argument that lower handicappers will have more high finishes, if not wins, does not apply to these cases, so a genuinely equal chance is more appropriate. If EG has a problem with it, they need to acknowledge that one size doesnt fit all, and be more flexible.
In the case of the 9 hole comps, yes, its a distortion that doesnt advantage or disadvantage any particular range, but spreads prizes a little more for very low key fun competitions. Everyone is happy with it, and certainly, nobody is going to complain to county about it.

Well that will be the first time in the history of golf that everybody in a club is happy with a change of any sort.

 

[Dunesman]

Well that will be the first time in the history of golf that everybody in a club is happy with a change of any sort.

Maybe !
But the 9 hole adjustment has been used for many years. And there is certainly no controversy or issue with it. There is never a complaint from someone losing out on a win because they feel they shouldnt have had their playing hc reduced by an extra shot from the WHS one.
Only the 0.9 for three comps will be new next year. Like the categories introduced this year, that on a trial basis and to be reviewed again at the end of next year.

 

[Swango1980]

You miss the point. I don't know if they genuinely do or do not but a National sporting governing body should not be behaving like tin pot demagogues threatening unpleasant phone calls or expulsions from an organisation for fairly minor local adjustments which do not impinge upon the external validity of the handicapping system.
They should look to the integrity of the game not their own self importance.

I didn't miss the point, and I wasn't suggesting the National Sporting Body had to threaten unpleasant phone calls to anyone.

I was simply saying that the club's approach on this matter, by not following the official guidelines, suits lower handicappers more than is does higher handicappers. That is a mathematical fact. The only way the Handicap Authority would ever find out about this is if someone complains, because I doubt they go around every golf club to ensure they are following all guidelines to the letter. And, if they did get a complaint, then there isn't much wiggle room for the Handicap Authority to say to the club "yeah, crack on, no problems here", given that they are quite clearly not following the guidelines set.

I'm sure most golfers just get on with it, as they don't know any better or don't feel it would be worth the hassle to complain. But, it only takes one, which is probably inevitable at some point in the future.

 

[Backache]

I didn't miss the point, and I wasn't suggesting the National Sporting Body had to threaten unpleasant phone calls to anyone.

I was simply saying that the club's approach on this matter, by not following the official guidelines, suits lower handicappers more than is does higher handicappers. That is a mathematical fact. The only way the Handicap Authority would ever find out about this is if someone complains, because I doubt they go around every golf club to ensure they are following all guidelines to the letter. And, if they did get a complaint, then there isn't much wiggle room for the Handicap Authority to say to the club "yeah, crack on, no problems here", given that they are quite clearly not following the guidelines set.

I'm sure most golfers just get on with it, as they don't know any better or don't feel it would be worth the hassle to complain. But, it only takes one, which is probably inevitable at some point in the future.

Guidelines in most places are there for guidance and can be deviated from where people think appropriate.
With handicapping if there is a large field which cannot be subdivided for an overall competition winner which is inevitable for many named competitions it should be absolutely at the discretion of the organising committee rather than the sporting governing body how the handicapping is organised.

 

[Swango1980]

Guidelines in most places are there for guidance and can be deviated from where people think appropriate.
With handicapping if there is a large field which cannot be subdivided for an overall competition winner which is inevitable for many named competitions it should be absolutely at the discretion of the organising committee rather than the sporting governing body how the handicapping is organised.

I'm sorry, but the handicap authority are pretty clear on this one, when they use the word "mandatory" in their guidance document for the UK. There can be no discretion, unless you wish to ignore the Rules of Handicapping set by the Handicap Authority. The responsibilities of a Golf Club are also set out clearly.

 

[Backache]

I'm sorry, but the handicap authority are pretty clear on this one, when they use the word "mandatory" in their guidance document for the UK. There can be no discretion, unless you wish to ignore the Rules of Handicapping set by the Handicap Authority. The responsibilities of a Golf Club are also set out clearly.

It is a 'Mandatory guideline' that is of itself an oxymoron that is so befitting of lampooning the self important idiocy of those that inflict them on clubs. There is no rational reason why all competitions throughout a country take place under such nonsense.

 

[wjemather]

Guidelines in most places are there for guidance and can be deviated from where people think appropriate.
With handicapping if there is a large field which cannot be subdivided for an overall competition winner which is inevitable for many named competitions it should be absolutely at the discretion of the organising committee rather than the sporting governing body how the handicapping is organised.

No, they are not "guidelines" that "can be deviated from where people think appropriate". They are rules and mandates that all affiliated clubs agree to follow in order to administer official handicaps for their members.

To say handicap limits cannot be applied is simply untrue. Clubs have absolute discretion in applying handicap limits to the trophy or any other prizes, or setting up divisions/flights/grades and limiting which of them is eligible for any trophy/prizes. The idea that certain competitions are special so should be fiddled to dishonestly disadvantage most of the field and increase the likelihood of getting a desired low handicap winner is outrageous.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Easiest thing we will do for some events is going back to the old scorecard

We made ones for scrambles

Works well

10% of combines HCs for one , 15% for the other

Jobs a good un

 

[Swango1980]

It is a 'Mandatory guideline' that is of itself an oxymoron that is so befitting of lampooning the self important idiocy of those that inflict them on clubs. There is no rational reason why all competitions throughout a country take place under such nonsense.

Having clubs being allowed to just set the Allowance % to something they see fit would bring a whole world of problems. I've seen huge issues caused at my old club, when the Handicap Committee years ago did all sorts of things based on their own opinion, and ended up winding up all sorts of people. For example, giving additional handicap cuts to anyone who won a competition, regardless of score, field size or importance.

Allow clubs to set the Playing Allowance %, you'd end up with clubs getting bolder and bolder. Some will go 90%, some 85%, some 80%. I wonder how low some clubs would dare go? All based on the decision of, sometimes one individual.

That would be nonsense. And even those that think it isn't, would no doubt go crazy if they happened to be at a club at their handicap sec / comp sec did something rogue that was a disbenefit to them. I'm all for people and Committee members questioning certain Rules, talking about them publicly, and maybe over time Rules will adapt if opinions prove to have merit. But, for anyone to just do things off their own back, with all due respect, shouldn't really be on a Committee if they are unable to fulfil their responsibilities. I'm not saying they are bad people, or they are not doing things with the best intentions. Just my opinion

 

[wjemather]

Easiest thing we will do for some events is going back to the old scorecard

We made ones for scrambles

Works well

10% of combines HCs for one , 15% for the other

Jobs a good un

.. for low handicappers; not so much for everyone else.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

.. for low handicappers; not so much for everyone else.

Sorry what do you mean ? We have had a mix of handicaps winning it

 

[Backache]

No, they are not "guidelines" that "can be deviated from where people think appropriate". They are rules and mandates that all affiliated clubs agree to follow in order to administer official handicaps for their members.

To say handicap limits cannot be applied is simply untrue. Clubs have absolute discretion in applying handicap limits to the trophy or any other prizes, or setting up divisions/flights/grades and limiting which of them is eligible for any trophy/prizes. The idea that certain competitions are special so should be fiddled to dishonestly disadvantage most of the field and increase the likelihood of getting a desired low handicap winner is outrageous.

I didn't say that handicap limits cannot be applied. I stated that you cannot divide the handicaps and have an overall competition winner. There can only be one overall winner of the Blenkinsop memorial bowl no matter how many subdivisions you have.

There is nothing fundamentally dishonest about altering the multiplier of the handicap it could be altered in either direction to suit a a particular competition.
It is merely against the oxymoronic 'Mandatory guidance set by an apparatchik with no local sensitivities which is why golf is regarded by many as having too many self important ***holes.

 

[D-S]

I deal regularly with a lot of Handicap Committees, they are incredibly varied as to their knowledge. diligence, experience and outlook.

I honestly dread to think what it would be like if some of them could make up handicap allowances for various formats.