Playing Handicap Allowances

[Old Skier]

Why? Appendix C gives some options. To the best of my knowledge, England Golf has not made a published statement re the option to delegate to clubs

Because they brief one thing a print something different. There was no mention of there being an option on what handicap allowances can be used.

 

[rulefan]

Because they brief one thing a print something different. There was no mention of there being an option on what handicap allowances can be used.

The odd thing is that Allowances play no part in resultant Handicap Index calculations.

 

[woofers]

From the slides at the WHS presentation I attended :

What Handicap Allowance Should I Be Using?
• For equity to be achieved amongst two or more players, a player’s Course Handicap must be converted into a Playing Handicap.
• Determined by the format of play and the applicable handicap allowances.
• These will be different for each format of play, and you should always check the Terms of the Competition before you play.
• Singles and fourball allowance are mandatory for GB&I.

 

[Old Skier]

From the slides at the WHS presentation I attended :

What Handicap Allowance Should I Be Using?
• For equity to be achieved amongst two or more players, a player’s Course Handicap must be converted into a Playing Handicap.
• Determined by the format of play and the applicable handicap allowances.
• These will be different for each format of play, and you should always check the Terms of the Competition before you play.
• Singles and fourball allowance are mandatory for GB&I.

Which is were the problem is, the the controlling body issues the rules and a delegated authority decides and we will get the members asking why especially those who might play in other countries where they aren’t mandatory.

EG told the golfing population that there was going to be one system across golf yet here we have an example of different authorities being given options.

Im in favour of a WHS not variations of a system.

Next, like now, we will end up with clubs adopting options that suit them outside of what the rules set out by the countries authority have set out.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Which is were the problem is, the the controlling body issues the rules and a delegated authority decides and we will get the members asking why especially those who might play in other countries where they aren’t mandatory.

EG told the golfing population that there was going to be one system across golf yet here we have an example of different authorities being given options.

Im in favour of a WHS not variations of a system.

Next, like now, we will end up with clubs adopting options that suit them outside of what the rules set out by the countries authority have set out.

I agree. I get that WHS is a framework and we are all changing to move towards a common system (which formats count for an acceptable round is a good example) but things like this should just be common from day one.

 

[jim8flog]

From the slides at the WHS presentation I attended :

What Handicap Allowance Should I Be Using?
• For equity to be achieved amongst two or more players, a player’s Course Handicap must be converted into a Playing Handicap.
• Determined by the format of play and the applicable handicap allowances.
• These will be different for each format of play, and you should always check the Terms of the Competition before you play.
• Singles and fourball allowance are mandatory for GB&I.

This is also what was said at the workshop I attended and it was included in the briefings we did for our members before the toolkit and and the manual came out.

As already posted the trouble is the manual and the posters in the Toolkit say something else.

 

[Beedee]

The odd thing is that Allowances play no part in resultant Handicap Index calculations.

Doesn't that mean that in stableford comps almost all players with a double figure handicap will have to remember that there will be 1 to 3 holes where they should not pick up immediately when they blob a hole?

 

[Swango1980]

The National Association is responsible for establishing handicap allowances or it
can delegate this responsibility to a Regional Golf Association or golf club.
The following table sets out the recommended handicap allowances based on
medium-sized field net events. The allowances may be adjusted based on field size
and the desired equity (see Interpretation C/1 ):

The manual already says it should not be used for fields of less than 30 players.

The recommended handicap allowance for all individual stroke play formats of
play is set at 95% for medium-sized field net events, of at least 30 players. For a
field size of fewer than 30 players, the recommendation would be to increase the
handicap allowance to 100%.

This just sounds absolutely bizarre to me. I assumed the 95% calculation was based on good statistical evidence that this was the fairest calculation to apply.

Take a two players, One with a Course Handicap of 0 and the other with a Course Handicap of 36. If there are 31 players in the field, 95% allowance. The 0 Course Handicapper wins the Comp with 38 points, 36 handicapper (playing off 34) comes 2nd with 37. However, if 29 players in the field, the 36 handicapper wins with 39 points.

Am I reading that right? If so, does it seem strange?

 

[rulefan]

From the slides at the WHS presentation I attended :

What Handicap Allowance Should I Be Using?
• For equity to be achieved amongst two or more players, a player’s Course Handicap must be converted into a Playing Handicap.
• Determined by the format of play and the applicable handicap allowances.
• These will be different for each format of play, and you should always check the Terms of the Competition before you play.
• Singles and fourball allowance are mandatory for GB&I.

I am led to believe that EG will not be delegating to clubs and that the allowances are mandatory.
Further, because of the possible calculation complications the Playing Handicap will be calculated from the integer value of the Course Handicap (ie the figure on the boards/charts).

Both to be published shortly.

 

[CountLippe]

This just sounds absolutely bizarre to me. I assumed the 95% calculation was based on good statistical evidence that this was the fairest calculation to apply.

Take a two players, One with a Course Handicap of 0 and the other with a Course Handicap of 36. If there are 31 players in the field, 95% allowance. The 0 Course Handicapper wins the Comp with 38 points, 36 handicapper (playing off 34) comes 2nd with 37. However, if 29 players in the field, the 36 handicapper wins with 39 points.

Am I reading that right? If so, does it seem strange?

Definitely seems to favour the 6-10 handicappers this rule.

 

[Swango1980]

Definitely seems to favour the 6-10 handicappers this rule.

Why 6-10? Surely you mean lower handicappers generally (as the lower the handicap, the less you take off their handicap when 95%)

However, I wouldn't say it favours low handicappers at all, provided the handicap authorities have determined the 95% is statistically the most fair way for all golfers in stroke play conditions. Presumably they have. However, what does seem unfair is that this only applies depending on the size of the field.

 

[CountLippe]

Cat 1 golfers rarely if ever win comps at my club, usually 150 plus each week. They'll normally litter the top 20, but are unlikely to match a higher handicapper having a good knock. The smaller the field the more likely they are to win (less high handicappers), I imagine 30 or less is when this starts working in their favour. The 95% doesn't penalise the 6-10 handicappers, who in my experience, still win their fair share of big field events as they have enough shots to go very low.

 

[rulefan]

Why 6-10? Surely you mean lower handicappers generally (as the lower the handicap, the less you take off their handicap when 95%)
what does seem unfair is that this only applies depending on the size of the field.

I have it on good authority that EG (and I suppose CONGU) will apply 95% to all field sizes.

 

[rulefan]

However, I wouldn't say it favours low handicappers at all, provided the handicap authorities have determined the 95% is statistically the most fair way for all golfers in stroke play conditions. Presumably they have.

That is what I am told

 

[jim8flog]

Definitely seems to favour the 6-10 handicappers this rule.

From what was said at the workshop this is the reason for having it because it is felt that the WHS system actually favours the high handicap players.

Take for example a player with a 0 Handicap index they will always have a 0 zero course handicap wherever they play. So it is only courses with a slope lower than 113 do they get a slight advantage.

Assuming a slope greater than 113 it becomes an increasing scale of how many shots get 'added' to your HI the higher your handicap the more shots you are going to get added.

We were told that other countries employ a similar system and it is known as reward for excellence down under.

 

[Swango1980]

From what was said at the workshop this is the reason for having it because it is felt that the WHS system actually favours the high handicap players.

Take for example a player with a 0 Handicap index they will always have a 0 zero course handicap wherever they play. So it is only courses with a slope lower than 113 do they get a slight advantage.

Assuming a slope greater than 113 it becomes an increasing scale of how many shots get 'added' to your HI the higher your handicap the more shots you are going to get added.

We were told that other countries employ a similar system and it is known as reward for excellence down under.

Just to add, the majority of courses have a slope over 113, and usually a lot more than 113 (say between 125-145 as pretty standard). So, golfers will almost always have an upwards adjustment from Index to Course Handicap, whith obviously the higher the handicap, the higher the upwards adjustment.

 

[rulefan]

We were told that other countries employ a similar system and it is known as reward for excellence down under.

Both the USA and Australia had a 'Bonus for Excellence' element. One was .93 and the other was .96 but I'm not sure which was which

 

[jim8flog]

Going back to other discussions this makes me think that the R&A also need to rethink what is required by Rule 3.3 and it makes the argument that it should be Handicap Index even stronger.

 

[rulefan]

Handicap Index has no bearing on what is relevant when you play.

 

[jim8flog]

Handicap Index has no bearing on what is relevant when you play.

Does that mean I can choose my own Handicap Index to start the calculation.