WHS and club competitions

[D-S]

Why can’t they use them then to set the comp allowance.?

Not sure I understand how that would work.

 

[Swango1980]

I already lose three shots at 95%. If my club decided to change to 85%, I'd be playing off 12 from an index of 16.1.

How do you lose 3 shots at 95% allowance?

You'd have to have a course handicap of over 51 to lose 3 shots at 95%

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

How do you lose 3 shots at 95% allowance?

You'd have to have a course handicap of over 51 to lose 3 shots at 95%

Could be down to our 95% allowance no longer being a simple 1/20th of our CH.

 

[wjemather]

How do you lose 3 shots at 95% allowance?

Presumably by equating HI to a number of strokes (as per the old system) and working from there.

• Handicap Index = 16.1 = 16
• Course Handicap = (16.1 * 112/113) - (65.9 - 68) = 14
• 95% Playing Handicap = unrounded CH * 0.95 = 13
• 85% Playing Handicap = unrounded CH * 0.85 = 12

 

[Orikoru]

How do you lose 3 shots at 95% allowance?

You'd have to have a course handicap of over 51 to lose 3 shots at 95%

From index to competition playing handicap I was talking about.

 

[wjemather]

From index to competition playing handicap I was talking about.

Per my post above, your Course Handicap is 14, so you never had 16 shots to start with and don't currently "lose" 3 of them.

 

[rulie]

From index to competition playing handicap I was talking about.

You don't "lose" 3 shots, you get 13. Can't lose something you never had!

 

[Dunesman]

You don't "lose" 3 shots, you get 13. Can't lose something you never had!

Well if you had 16, and now you have 13, the maths does say you have lost 3 shots between the former situation and the latter.

 

[rulie]

Well if you had 16, and now you have 13, the maths does say you have lost 3 shots between the former situation and the latter.

If you've "lost" them, you should be able to "find" them, issue resolved.

 

[Dunesman]

If you've "lost" them, you should be able to "find" them, issue resolved.

Thats the way some will approach it, yes. WHS, famously, readily facilitates it.

 

[Swango1980]

From index to competition playing handicap I was talking about.

The Index is irrelevant in the context you are using it though. It is just a number (i.e. an Index) used to derive your actual course handicap.

As you know, even with 100% allowance, at some course you might have a course handicap if 10, others it might be 20. You are not really losing or gaining shots against your ability, you are just getting whatever course handicap you merit on that particular course

 

[Orikoru]

The Index is irrelevant in the context you are using it though. It is just a number (i.e. an Index) used to derive your actual course handicap.

As you know, even with 100% allowance, at some course you might have a course handicap if 10, others it might be 20. You are not really losing or gaining shots against your ability, you are just getting whatever course handicap you merit on that particular course

I physically have lost shots though already because they re-rated our course and rated it lower than before.

 

[Swango1980]

I physically have lost shots though already because they re-rated our course and rated it lower than before.

That's an additional factor beyond the playing allowance, which is all I was replying to

 

[rulefan]

I physically have lost shots though already because they re-rated our course and rated it lower than before.

So now it is easier for you to play it.

 

[Rlburnside]

Golf Ireland have opened a big can of worms here but I applaud them for trying to sort out an unpopular new system.

First of all I can’t understand how they can go it alone and implement this, I thought whs was supposed to be the same for everyone.

So we have now we have clubs h/c committees setting handicap allowances ranging from 100% to 85%, this can’t be right as some clubs will get it right some won’t.

All this is going to do is antagonize, confuse golfers and also cause some arguments in clubs.

I know at my club where we have small fields everyone will be delighted if we go back to 100% allowances, with the possible execution of a couple of low guys.

 

[D-S]

Golf Ireland have opened a big can of worms here but I applaud them for trying to sort out an unpopular new system.

First of all I can’t understand how they can go it alone and implement this, I thought whs was supposed to be the same for everyone.

So we have now we have clubs h/c committees setting handicap allowances ranging from 100% to 85%, this can’t be right as some clubs will get it right some won’t.

All this is going to do is antagonize, confuse golfers and also cause some arguments in clubs.

I know at my club where we have small fields everyone will be delighted if we go back to 100% allowances, with the possible execution of a couple of low guys.

It is a a trial, so it is not, at the moment, a permanent implementation. However the parameters and how it will be assessed are not known. Just letting some clubs pick and choose allowances based on some woolly recommendations and personal preferences isn’t a well thought out way of assessing equity.
Also why a trial is needed in the first place is strange, as they have enormous amounts of data from thousands of competitions held over the past years with every sort of field size and handicap distribution. Crunching these numbers to find the most equitable and easiest to implement system should be what they are doing.
If the results of the trial are just from a survey then they will be just causing another area for dissatisfaction.

 

[Swango1980]

It is a a trial, so it is not, at the moment, a permanent implementation. However the parameters and how it will be assessed are not known. Just letting some clubs pick and choose allowances based on some woolly recommendations and personal preferences isn’t a well thought out way of assessing equity.
Also why a trial is needed in the first place is strange, as they have enormous amounts of data from thousands of competitions held over the past years with every sort of field size and handicap distribution. Crunching these numbers to find the most equitable and easiest to implement system should be what they are doing.
If the results of the trial are just from a survey then they will be just causing another area for dissatisfaction.

It's a very good point.

When golfers questioned the Texas Scramble allowances for example, we were basically told not to question it, because the allowances were based on the analysis thousands upon thousands of scores and so WHS know better (don't even mention the fact that Scrambles can be different, like Texas or Florida, min no. of drives, etc). So, if the Allowances used in Scrambles are meant to be watertight, you'd think allowances in singles play would be absolutely definitive. Even if the handicap is dependent on field size and distribution, if that is absolutely proven, then could the software not be used to work out the suitable allowance once all entrants are known (might be tricky in all day comps where field size is unknown to begin with, unless golfers just accept their Playing Handicap will not be finalised until the end of the comp).

Just allowing Committees to select the allowances isn't technically a trial in what is fairest (because the handicap authorities surely know this based on their data processing). It is a trial on what humans that run Committees prefer to do. Will many just opt for the lowest value (allow 75%, I bet a ton of Committees would just select that). Will many just stick to the default? Will any change it based on field size and handicap proportions? Will any stick it at 100% (I reckon that would be the most controversial of all)

 

[wjemather]

I know at my club where we have small fields everyone will be delighted if we go back to 100% allowances, with the possible execution of a couple of low guys.

I think executing them for not being delighted maybe a bit harsh!

 

[wjemather]

It is a a trial, so it is not, at the moment, a permanent implementation. However the parameters and how it will be assessed are not known. Just letting some clubs pick and choose allowances based on some woolly recommendations and personal preferences isn’t a well thought out way of assessing equity.
Also why a trial is needed in the first place is strange, as they have enormous amounts of data from thousands of competitions held over the past years with every sort of field size and handicap distribution. Crunching these numbers to find the most equitable and easiest to implement system should be what they are doing.
If the results of the trial are just from a survey then they will be just causing another area for dissatisfaction.

I expect it's mostly a trial to see how clubs use the option, and how higher handicappers react to being screwed over should clubs go down the 85% route.

 

[Backache]

As a higher handicapper I think my grief would be overwhelming at being beaten in a sport by someone who was better at it than I.