Quick poll on your new handicap index

[rulefan]

You're such an advocate of the WHS that you appear miss to the obvious here.

People measure their scores against par. It's a fundamental scoring aspect of golf. Eagle, birdie, bogey... they are all scores relative to par. What did Dustin Johnson score at the Masters? 20 under par. No normal person would say 268. If I ask a friend what they scored at the weekend, they would say "4 over", and they are talking about par not CR or SSS or CSS.

The logical handicap process is that players should get more shots on harder courses, not fewer. When I first heard about the WHS I thought it would work something like this:

Course A: par 72, CR 72. Let's say this is your home course, you play off 10. You shoot 82 - 10 = nett level par
Course B: par 72, CR 74. A tougher course, the 10 handicapper above should get a couple more shots, so you shoot 84 - 12 = nett level par.
Course C: par 72, CR 70. An easier course, the 10 handicapper should get fewer shots, You shoot 80 - 8 = nett level par.

It's a simplistic example and I expected the slope to add moderate the crude CR calculation for different abilities.

As the pros don't play handicap competitions it make life simpler for punters to keep track of the relative positions of players. It doesn't say how well they are playing in absolute terms. If all the tees were moved forward to the par length limit and then moved backwards to the par length limit. The round scores would be very different but for one player wouldn't mean a lot. Johnson might have been 35 under instead of 20 but what would it tell you other than the course was easier?

As an aside, since having an issue with a player whose stableford card I was marking, I can't remember ever having totalled points on a card. Stableford or medal, I record hole strokes and running gross. No maths, no hassle.

Incidentally, I have done more searching and find that a substantial majority of tees are not par 72

 

[PJ87]

You're such an advocate of the WHS that you appear miss to the obvious here.

People measure their scores against par. It's a fundamental scoring aspect of golf. Eagle, birdie, bogey... they are all scores relative to par. What did Dustin Johnson score at the Masters? 20 under par. No normal person would say 268. If I ask a friend what they scored at the weekend, they would say "4 over", and they are talking about par not CR or SSS or CSS.

The logical handicap process is that players should get more shots on harder courses, not fewer. When I first heard about the WHS I thought it would work something like this:

Course A: par 72, CR 72. Let's say this is your home course, you play off 10. You shoot 82 - 10 = nett level par
Course B: par 72, CR 74. A tougher course, the 10 handicapper above should get a couple more shots, so you shoot 84 - 12 = nett level par.
Course C: par 72, CR 70. An easier course, the 10 handicapper should get fewer shots, You shoot 80 - 8 = nett level par.

It's a simplistic example and I expected the slope to add moderate the crude CR calculation for different abilities.

This is where I think the UK is wrong. I'm just going to say that's my opinion

Rest of world you need index , course rating. Slope and par to work out playing handicap

So my course the example I gave I'd play off 29 off whites (27 is what they giving me) so I'd more likely shoot 36 not 34 that we have talked about

The other example Brentwood I'd be off 26 which id more likely hit 36 than I would 38

Tbh this is how I thought the UK would do it

And it seems odd and backwards that we don't do it for a WORLD handicap system

 

[sunshine]

As the pros don't play handicap competitions it make life simpler for punters to keep track of the relative positions of players. It doesn't say how well they are playing in absolute terms. If all the tees were moved forward to the par length limit and then moved backwards to the par length limit. The round scores would be very different but for one player wouldn't mean a lot. Johnson might have been 35 under instead of 20 but what would it tell you other than the course was easier?

As an aside, since having an issue with a player whose stableford card I was marking, I can't remember ever having totalled points on a card. Stableford or medal, I record hole strokes and running gross. No maths, no hassle.

Incidentally, I have done more searching and find that a substantial majority of tees are not par 72

You make three points. I don't see how any of them are relevant to my post

 

[jim8flog]

When I first heard about the WHS I thought it would work something like this:

Course A: par 72, CR 72. Let's say this is your home course, you play off 10. You shoot 82 - 10 = nett level par
Course B: par 72, CR 74. A tougher course, the 10 handicapper above should get a couple more shots, so you shoot 84 - 12 = nett level par.
Course C: par 72, CR 70. An easier course, the 10 handicapper should get fewer shots, You shoot 80 - 8 = nett level par.

It's a simplistic example and I expected the slope to add moderate the crude CR calculation for different abilities.

I agree to a very slight extent but then again I already knew about slope and it's principles and I assumed, correctly, that slope would decide what your handicap is on a given course.

 

[IanM]

I'm not sure why it's so difficult.

1) Arrive at club.
2) Look at Huge poster to determine how many shots you get, at every golf course in the world.
3) Angrily walk around for 4 hours as you get no way near handicap.

...until the nerds make playing to your handicap a slightly more mysterious concept that was meant to be!

 

[Orikoru]

I really think to 90% of recreational golfers 'slope' is just a myth and if you asked them to explain it they wouldn't be able to. I know it's something like the relative difficulty of a course to an 18 handicapper vs a scratch player or something - but I just see it in layman's terms as a number for how hard the course is full stop. The numbers themselves just seem totally made up as well. Why is the mid point 113? You couldn't get a more random number than that, why not use 100? That would make it easier on the eye and brain I think for a start. If you strip it all back it could definitely be vastly simpler.

 

[IanM]

I really think to 90% of recreational golfers 'slope' is just a myth and if you asked them to explain it they wouldn't be able to. I know it's something like the relative difficulty of a course to an 18 handicapper vs a scratch player or something - but I just see it in layman's terms as a number for how hard the course is full stop. The numbers themselves just seem totally made up as well. Why is the mid point 113? You couldn't get a more random number than that, why not use 100? That would make it easier on the eye and brain I think for a start. If you strip it all back it could definitely be vastly simpler.

and the initial calculations/formulae should have been adjusted to remove the need to play off 95% in singles. But I guess making it user friendly wasn't a consideration.

 

[PJ87]

I really think to 90% of recreational golfers 'slope' is just a myth and if you asked them to explain it they wouldn't be able to. I know it's something like the relative difficulty of a course to an 18 handicapper vs a scratch player or something - but I just see it in layman's terms as a number for how hard the course is full stop. The numbers themselves just seem totally made up as well. Why is the mid point 113? You couldn't get a more random number than that, why not use 100? That would make it easier on the eye and brain I think for a start. If you strip it all back it could definitely be vastly simpler.

I just don't get why under a world handicap system we don't do it the same

Yes we can take our index anywhere but we then have to work out their way to get a handicap for course not ours?

 

[Orikoru]

and the initial calculations/formulae should have been adjusted to remove the need to play off 95% in singles. But I guess making it user friendly wasn't a consideration.

But that's the difference ... for example, most golfers (hopefully all) know the penalty for going OB. (even if some "just put one down there" when playing recreationally) But less than 5% (Guess) actually know the rule number, and subsections and chapter in the Decisions Book! WHS was developed by folk who think you should know the chapter!

But, I am glad about that. Some of these people run Change in large organisations, I am paid well to come in and sort out the mess they make!

Totally agree on the bold! I'm fully expecting about a third of the field to be disqualified from the first few comps in December as they've forgotten to do this. Me included! Whatever the chart says for how many shots you get, that should be how many shots you get. Not that times 0.95, it's stupid. Just make it easy for people.

Agree with your second point as well. The most annoying thing about this, and from all the rules experts, is that they act as if everyone should know all this stuff already.

 

[Orikoru]

I just don't get why under a world handicap system we don't do it the same

Yes we can take our index anywhere but we then have to work out their way to get a handicap for course not ours?

You've lost me there to be honest - are you saying the 'world' handicap system is not the same all over the world? Wasn't that the entire point of changing it?

 

[Yorkshire Hacker]

Sounds like pauljames87, IanM, and Orikoru are echoing my sentiments entirely. Yes, WHY was 113 used as a base figure? There hasn't been such a senseless decision since Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit worked out that water froze at 32degrees, and boiled at 212.
No doubt we will have Rulefan (and others) explaining what complete imbeciles we are.

 

[jim8flog]

Totally agree on the bold! I'm fully expecting about a third of the field to be disqualified from the first few comps in December as they've forgotten to do this. Me included! Whatever the chart says for how many shots you get, that should be how many shots you get. Not that times 0.95, it's stupid. Just make it easy for people.

Agree with your second point as well. The most annoying thing about this, and from all the rules experts, is that they act as if everyone should know all this stuff already.

It has been said many times on this forum

You cannot be disqualified for wrong or missing Playing Handicap (the figure after the 95% percent calculation).

The only thing that needs to be on card and be correct is the your Course Handicap (the figure from the charts).

 

[Orikoru]

It has been said many times on this forum

You cannot be disqualified for wrong or missing Playing Handicap (the figure after the 95% percent calculation).

The only thing that needs to be on card and be correct is the your Course Handicap (the figure from the charts).

Ok, that's all very fair and reasonable but clearly they've had to stipulate that because they know so many people will have no idea what they're playing off!

 

[Imurg]

I count myself as fairly clued up about WHS...not to the level of some, but I know what's what.
The one thing that still makes my brain burst is that on Nov 1st I had a handicap that gave me "X" number of shots in a competition.
From November 2nd I have a handicap that gives me "X+2" shots on the very same course and tees.
There's logic in there somewhere but im struggling to find it.

 

[IanM]

I guess there is logic in an increase if you had the majority of recent scores over handicap, but then you'll say you haven't!

 

[Imurg]

I guess there is logic in an increase if you had the majority of recent scores over handicap, but then you'll say you haven't!

6 of my 8 are in my most recent 7 rounds....

 

[PJ87]

You've lost me there to be honest - are you saying the 'world' handicap system is not the same all over the world? Wasn't that the entire point of changing it?

Yes it's different

To get your playing handicap in the UK you do the following

Take the slope of course / by 113 (average) times by index

So my course 121 / 133 X 25.2 gives me 27

Or just open the app and it does it for you

Go to America or other places you do the following

Go to the app and enter

Slope, course rating, index and par of course

https://www.usga.org/course-handicap-calculator.html

I'd be off 29 at my course and 26 at the easier course ... The way round I expected it

Not the 27 at mine and 29 at the easier course

 

[Bdill93]

Yes it's different

To get your playing handicap in the UK you do the following

Take the slope of course / by 113 (average) times by index

So my course 121 / 133 X 25.2 gives me 27

Or just open the app and it does it for you

Go to America or other places you do the following

Go to the app and enter

Slope, course rating, index and par of course

https://www.usga.org/course-handicap-calculator.html

I'd be off 29 at my course and 26 at the easier course ... The way round I expected it

Not the 27 at mine and 29 at the easier course

Interesting this!

My Index is 22.1, at my home course in the UK I play off 24. Using that calculator id be off 22 (working on the basis of me picking up the whole course and moving it stateside!)

Seems to make more sense! Alas, it wont change so Im not going to moan! Playing handicap on the card and let the computer do the work!

 

[PJ87]

Interesting this!

My Index is 22.1, at my home course in the UK I play off 24. Using that calculator id be off 22 (working on the basis of me picking up the whole course and moving it stateside!)

Seems to make more sense! Alas, it wont change so Im not going to moan! Playing handicap on the card and let the computer do the work!

What do we have to put on card? I'd like to just put. Score. Index, tee used

 

[IanM]

6 of my 8 are in my most recent 7 rounds....

and were they better or worse than handicap? (Handicap, using the old meaning of the word than everyone understood for the past 100 years!_