wjemather
Well-known member
Not what I said.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
No, it's not *all* you said, as well as not having a grasp of his subject, he's also devoid of evidence or balance.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 36483
Guest
Partly the problem, I agree. It's also clear that some players benefit from using a mat more than others. Those that benefit the most also can struggle the most during the summer conditions. Trying to find a slope that works is a tricky business.
We have a winter league and make sure there's an even distribution of handicaps in each team. The individual winner has come from the higher handicaps but the team aspect makes it worthwhile to enter.
D
Deleted member 36483
Guest
Yes, I found it.
5 Common Misconceptions About The World Handicap System
The World Handicap System is complex and easily misunderstood. So, with the intention of clearing things up, here are five more common misconceptions about WHS
www.golfmonthly.com
What mistakes did he make?
wjemather
Well-known member
1. The implication is that this is a WHS misconception, when it has always been the case. Also, he's presumably talking about gross scores, but since the introduction of CR-Par to the CH calculation, nett Par is now the benchmark for playing to handicap everywhere.Yes, I found it.
5 Common Misconceptions About The World Handicap System
The World Handicap System is complex and easily misunderstood. So, with the intention of clearing things up, here are five more common misconceptions about WHS
What mistakes did he make?
2. His explanation is more misleading that the original misconception. He doesn't accurately or completely reflect the rules, making no mention of nett double bogey (although touched on in 3) or that holes cannot be not played without a valid reason.
3. "...the system will give you a score of nett par." Wrong.
5. Bad weather doesn't automatically make scoring more difficult, and PCC (and CSS) is not a weather adjustment. He is perpetuating common misconceptions that the reverse are true.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
I was going to reply to this, but really what's the point
You'll look at a ceiling being painted white and say it's black.
Dunesman
Active member
5 More Common Misconceptions about WHS :
1. That it is a handicap system common throughout the world.
Au contraire. There are as many different handicap systems in the world as there were before WHS. The only true common point is that they all use the same name now - World Handicap System. Which I guess actually makes the whole situation more confusing.
2. That it is a fair to all players.
Au contraire. It is constructed deliberately to discriminate against lower handicappers chances of winning. To various degrees this doesnt just apply unfairly to a tiny minority of golfer, but to about one fifth of amateur recreational golfers.
3. That handicaps indexes from different parts if the world are now comparable without adjustment.
Au contraire. Same Indexes from the USA and England for example do not indicate the same level of golf at all.
4. That there is no discontent or discussion of issues with WHS in the UK.
Au contraire. Since its implementation it has caused concern and unhappiness among ordinary golfers that it is not fit for purpose, as a handicap system suited to UK club golf culture and tradition. In club committees, members bars, golf magazines, and online bulletin boards.
5. That the system is open and transparent and fully communicated to members to ensure confidence and trust.
Au contraire. On a crucial element, which under its predecessor was indeed published in the Congu handbook, the modification of handicap adjustments to account for course and weather conditions, not only has it not been published, but golfers have been told it will not and cannot be shared with them, and golfers experience of the unknown algorithm is that it does not work.
Mr. Bisset was rather gentle in his misconceptions in my view.
1. That it is a handicap system common throughout the world.
Au contraire. There are as many different handicap systems in the world as there were before WHS. The only true common point is that they all use the same name now - World Handicap System. Which I guess actually makes the whole situation more confusing.
2. That it is a fair to all players.
Au contraire. It is constructed deliberately to discriminate against lower handicappers chances of winning. To various degrees this doesnt just apply unfairly to a tiny minority of golfer, but to about one fifth of amateur recreational golfers.
3. That handicaps indexes from different parts if the world are now comparable without adjustment.
Au contraire. Same Indexes from the USA and England for example do not indicate the same level of golf at all.
4. That there is no discontent or discussion of issues with WHS in the UK.
Au contraire. Since its implementation it has caused concern and unhappiness among ordinary golfers that it is not fit for purpose, as a handicap system suited to UK club golf culture and tradition. In club committees, members bars, golf magazines, and online bulletin boards.
5. That the system is open and transparent and fully communicated to members to ensure confidence and trust.
Au contraire. On a crucial element, which under its predecessor was indeed published in the Congu handbook, the modification of handicap adjustments to account for course and weather conditions, not only has it not been published, but golfers have been told it will not and cannot be shared with them, and golfers experience of the unknown algorithm is that it does not work.
Mr. Bisset was rather gentle in his misconceptions in my view.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
The poll on there was interesting.
It adds up to 101%
It adds up to 101%
D
Deleted member 36483
Guest
Rounding error.
On that subject in WHS, has anyone noticed that the rounding calculations for playing handicap are now inconsistent?
Prior to this year in a 4BBB match you took 90% of your rounded course handicap to be your playing handicap. You then subtracted the lowest of the four handicaps to give you your shot allocation. This allowance calculation against a rounded course handicap was the same approach for all formats.
Now we use unrounded course handicaps across the board but not for 4bbb matches. We take 90% of the difference in the rounded course handicaps now. The result isn't always the same.
The reason of course is that that would mean players would have to know how to calculate 90% of their unrounded course handicap and that would be annoying. The computer does that in card competitions and very few know what's happening.
So WHS has a hack in it to avoid looking too complicated.
AussieKB
Well-known member
Just entered an Open I always play in and was shocked to see that I am the fourth lowest handicap at 4.8
usually I am well down the list, also only 140 players entered, normally a full field of 240 players.
This course has also recently changed their Major Men's competition from stroke to stableford as the numbers
were falling steadily the last 4-5 years, once it was a ballot to get in.
Might be something to look at other Clubs Opens and see if the same thing is happening to them.
usually I am well down the list, also only 140 players entered, normally a full field of 240 players.
This course has also recently changed their Major Men's competition from stroke to stableford as the numbers
were falling steadily the last 4-5 years, once it was a ballot to get in.
Might be something to look at other Clubs Opens and see if the same thing is happening to them.
tobybarker
Active member
A committee who adjusted his hcp manually?
D
Deleted member 36483
Guest
This forum is a bit like QI. You must be careful before suggesting an obvious answer.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Yes and they used to give a much lower handicap and adjust it up or down if needed.
RichA
Well-known member
But I previously asked this...
and was told this...
So was it not fully automated?
rulefan
Tour Winner
This is what the 2019 CONGU UHS manual said:
16.3 The Handicap Committee has the following responsibilities and discretions in regard to the allotment of handicaps. (Note that these scores are to be recorded on the players Handicap Record via the Computer and the calculations below will be carried out automatically).
(a) If a handicap has been previously held, refer to Clause 26 (Regaining a Handicap).
Otherwise the initial handicap shall be allotted as in (b) below.
(b) The Handicap Committee shall
1. Adjust any score of more than double par at any hole to a score of double par (i.e. 6 on a Par 3, 8 on a Par 4 and 10 on a Par 5).
2. Add the nine-hole scores (if applicable) to make up 18-hole equivalents in chronological order. If a club has more than one Designated Nine-Hole Courses each pair of nine-hole scores must be returned over courses having the same Designated Nine-Hole SSSs for the gender of player concerned.
3. Calculate the Adjusted Gross Differential (‘AGD‘) scores from the three 18 hole (or 18-hole equivalent) scores; these scores being calculated by comparing the returns relative to the SSS’s of the courses/tees used: AGD = Adjusted Gross Score – SSS for the course/tees used Determine the Lowest Adjusted Gross Differential (‘LAGD‘) from the three Adjusted Gross Differentials
4. Reduce the resulting LAGD according to the formula;
Initial Handicap = (LAGD + (LAGD*0.13))/ 1.237 truncated to provide a whole number.
For example, a player with a Lowest Adjusted Gross Differential of 31 is allotted an initial handicap of 28 (which is recorded as an Exact Handicap of 28.0) as shown below: Initial Handicap = (31 + (31*0.13))/1.237 = (31 + 4.03)/1.237
= (35.03/1.237)
= 28.31 truncated to 28 and recorded as an Exact Handicap of 28.0
After these adjustments have been made the whole number Exact Handicap shall, subject to the provisions of Clauses 16.3(c) and 16.3(e), be allotted.
(c) The Handicap Committee must consider all the information available to it in relation to the player’s ability and any previously held handicap before allotment of a handicap. After due consideration, the Handicap Committee may allot a player an initial whole number Exact Handicap less than that calculated as per 16.3(b) above if it has reason to consider that a lower handicap is more appropriate to the player’s ability. In exceptional circumstances a higher handicap may be allotted than that indicated above.
(d) The Handicap Committee should review the initial Qualifying Scores returned by all Member’s to whom a handicap has recently been allotted. If the Handicap Committee determines that an adjustment is required to a Member’s recently allotted handicap, this must be administered in accordance with the provisions of Clause 23 B.
16.3 The Handicap Committee has the following responsibilities and discretions in regard to the allotment of handicaps. (Note that these scores are to be recorded on the players Handicap Record via the Computer and the calculations below will be carried out automatically).
(a) If a handicap has been previously held, refer to Clause 26 (Regaining a Handicap).
Otherwise the initial handicap shall be allotted as in (b) below.
(b) The Handicap Committee shall
1. Adjust any score of more than double par at any hole to a score of double par (i.e. 6 on a Par 3, 8 on a Par 4 and 10 on a Par 5).
2. Add the nine-hole scores (if applicable) to make up 18-hole equivalents in chronological order. If a club has more than one Designated Nine-Hole Courses each pair of nine-hole scores must be returned over courses having the same Designated Nine-Hole SSSs for the gender of player concerned.
3. Calculate the Adjusted Gross Differential (‘AGD‘) scores from the three 18 hole (or 18-hole equivalent) scores; these scores being calculated by comparing the returns relative to the SSS’s of the courses/tees used: AGD = Adjusted Gross Score – SSS for the course/tees used Determine the Lowest Adjusted Gross Differential (‘LAGD‘) from the three Adjusted Gross Differentials
4. Reduce the resulting LAGD according to the formula;
Initial Handicap = (LAGD + (LAGD*0.13))/ 1.237 truncated to provide a whole number.
For example, a player with a Lowest Adjusted Gross Differential of 31 is allotted an initial handicap of 28 (which is recorded as an Exact Handicap of 28.0) as shown below: Initial Handicap = (31 + (31*0.13))/1.237 = (31 + 4.03)/1.237
= (35.03/1.237)
= 28.31 truncated to 28 and recorded as an Exact Handicap of 28.0
After these adjustments have been made the whole number Exact Handicap shall, subject to the provisions of Clauses 16.3(c) and 16.3(e), be allotted.
(c) The Handicap Committee must consider all the information available to it in relation to the player’s ability and any previously held handicap before allotment of a handicap. After due consideration, the Handicap Committee may allot a player an initial whole number Exact Handicap less than that calculated as per 16.3(b) above if it has reason to consider that a lower handicap is more appropriate to the player’s ability. In exceptional circumstances a higher handicap may be allotted than that indicated above.
(d) The Handicap Committee should review the initial Qualifying Scores returned by all Member’s to whom a handicap has recently been allotted. If the Handicap Committee determines that an adjustment is required to a Member’s recently allotted handicap, this must be administered in accordance with the provisions of Clause 23 B.
wjemather
Well-known member
It also said:
"In exceptional circumstances the Handicap Committee may adjust the handicap of a player in the period between Annual Reviews if there is compelling evidence that his Exact Handicap does not reflect his current playing ability." (emphasis mine)
and:
"...the Handicap Committee must... not use General Play Adjustments as a ‘punishment’ (or ‘reward’) for success in either match or stroke play competitions..."
Klimski
Active member
Perhaps the system is less flawed than the people (ab)using it.
AussieKB
Well-known member
45 points won today from a 21 handicapper, second was 41 points from a 29 handicapper, 69 played.
System works for them.
System works for them.
wjemather
Well-known member
Isolated results cherry-picked to support a deeply entrenched opinion are not particularly useful, especially when they come with no detail or context.
For all we know, this could have been a comp for 20+ handicappers and one of the lowest in the field won; or perhaps third place was a scratch golfer with 41 points who missed out on countback.
GA's latest analysis covering the whole of Australia would be useful if you have it.
