D-S
Well-known member
How on earth could it be CH? Someone with a HI of 0.0 would have a CH at Bethpage Black off the tips (to use an example from this thread) of 6 - so they are not a scratch golfer?
How on earth could it be CH? Someone with a HI of 0.0 would have a CH at Bethpage Black off the tips (to use an example from this thread) of 6 - so they are not a scratch golfer?
Straying off the purpose of the thread here (apologies) but I think that this is where theory and practice can become divorced. I have been on my club's handicap committee since WHS was introduced, at which point I removed nearly 400 ex members from the England Golf handicap database (some long departed, either from the club or the mortal coil including one who had 13 CDH numbers!). We are now spot on, as I regularly do a reconciliation. Our County Treasurer receives EG/County subs from the clubs. In the majority of cases, the number they are paying for is significantly less than the number registered on WHS. Requests to clubs to cleanse their database are slowly getting through to the miscreants, perhaps due to the indication by England Golf that in future the affiliation fee will be charged based on the WHS figure rather than the one the club submit.Yes, you should report anything like this. The best way is through your own handicap committee, who will pass it on via the county advisor.
If he's not a member at any club, all previous clubs should have resigned him on the system and he should no longer have a handicap. If that club isn't doing this when members leave, they probably just need a reminder.
In England & Wales it would currently be both. From April it will most definately be HI.I can see both sides of this and fail to get bothered by either argument.
1) If folk are putting in scores properly, their handicap is what the app says it is.
2) Notwithstanding Slope, CR, PCC, BBC, ITV, RAC etc etc, golfers have been debating the relative difficulties of courses since Old Tom was a nipper.
Are we back to the debate about "is it CH or HI" that determines scratch?
*at school or in prison.Nobody* wants to be known as the person that grassed someone up.
Lets' put 100 scratch golfers from England on a plane, send them to 'nooo yoik' for 12 months and let them play Bethpage Black from the tips every weekend.
Will they all come back playing off scratch?
I know several ex-Pros who are + handicappers, but just weren't good enough for the pro ranks (even at the lower levels)If you broke 80 just 20% of the time around Bethpage from the tips you would very likely be scratch
Highlights the gap between a scratch and tour player very well!
We have three current pros who have handicaps based at our course. They are +1.5 +1.2 and +1.0I know several ex-Pros who are + handicappers, but just weren't good enough for the pro ranks (even at the lower levels)
This is correct, and as planned. For two reasons. The removal of the bias in favour of low handicappers, so now lower but in line with higher hcs. The stickiness of UHS, less reflected current form, and so anchored towards the lower end, and/or, facilitated a bit of handicap vanity of scratchmen who werent necessarily anymore.I reckon that at the lower end of handicaps compared to the old system they are a couple of shots lower under WHS
At my place we have a current Pro @ +5.1 & 3 former Pros @ +3.3, +3.1 & +2.5We have three current pros who have handicaps based at our course. They are +1.5 +1.2 and +1.0
They can play in midland club-pro events from time to time and pick up a few £100s now and again.
Our three lowest amateurs are +1.2 +1.0 and +0.9.
The +1.5 is the oldest of the 6.
you make it up as you goThis is correct, and as planned. For two reasons. The removal of the bias in favour of low handicappers, so now lower but in line with higher hcs. The stickiness of UHS, less reflected current form, and so anchored towards the lower end, and/or, facilitated a bit of handicap vanity of scratchmen who werent necessarily anymore.
That will concentrate a few mindsRequests to clubs to cleanse their database are slowly getting through to the miscreants, perhaps due to the indication by England Golf that in future the affiliation fee will be charged based on the WHS figure rather than the one the club submit.
So under WHS most very low players are a couple shots lower than UHS (think we all agree that's happened), yet UHS which produced higher handicaps were facilitating vanity handicaps?This is correct, and as planned. For two reasons. The removal of the bias in favour of low handicappers, so now lower but in line with higher hcs. The stickiness of UHS, less reflected current form, and so anchored towards the lower end, and/or, facilitated a bit of handicap vanity of scratchmen who werent necessarily anymore.
Essentially, yes.So under WHS most very low players are a couple shots lower than UHS (think we all agree that's happened), yet UHS which produced higher handicaps were facilitating vanity handicaps?
Course | Par | Rating | Slope | Handicap |
1 | 73 | 71.7 | 133 | 6.1 |
2 | 72 | 70.5 | 133 | 4.9 |
3 | 72 | 71.2 | 125 | 3.5 |
4 | 72 | 69.8 | 117 | 3.7 |
Yes, exactly. Due to the stickiness, or, compared to WHS, slower tendency to rise with disimproving scores.So under WHS most very low players are a couple shots lower than UHS (think we all agree that's happened), yet UHS which produced higher handicaps were facilitating vanity handicaps?
Well, in attempt to help more people understand WHS. Some people really dont understand it at all. Nor UHS in the main, although many had accimulated a 'feel' for that, even if they didnt follow what was behind it, or even had misconceptions about how it worked.you make it up as you go
I'd say scratch is scratch is a tautology.I certainly agree that the new system has made it easier,but to say scratch isn’t scratch is to me ridiculous.