WHS and recent comment by Dean Knuth

[duncan mackie]

...and yet I hear regular golfers talking about the WHS and quoting misconceptions every time I am at my club.....and they all ask me questions along the lines of..."is it true that...." or "I've heard that...."

The same thing happened with the 2019 rule changes....you would have thought the world was caving in during 2018 when players first "learned" they were going to be able to drop a ball on the fairway closest to where their ball went out of bounds.

Regarding allowances....all our members are acutely aware of them and still complain about the change to full handicap difference for singles matchplay....and when did that happen...something like 12 years ago if memory serves me correctly.

I guess that our experiences with fellow golfers are at different ends of the spectrum Rulefan.

I suspect your experiences are similar - but you are looking at it from a different perspective.
your comment here on allowances is at complete odds to the point you started off trying to make - despite constant changes to allowances, on going differences across the various associations and authorities, members are quickly aware of those applicable to them from time to time!
However, during the what will be phase there is always going to be scope for confusion until it becomes real.

 

[Swango1980]

As an 'involved' person, I am often asked questions about the rules or handicapping. It was notable that prior to Jan 1 2019 there were very few questions from players about the new rules even though I had run presentations in the preceding months. In the case of WHS, apart from discussions with the h'cap committee and at county seminars, no one has tackled me about it.
I have offered to do presentations to groups within my club (eg seniors, rabbits, casual fiddle/swindles/roll-ups, ladies). All have said 'Yes please but leave it til just before we change, no one is interested yet'.
I reckon all those discussing the topic in blogs or forums are either already actively involved in handicapping, those just getting to grips with the actual start (eg USA with GHIN problems) or inveterate golf forum members as I mentioned above.

Back to allowances, I suspect that a very large proportion of players only know the current allowances when they check the back of their card or entry sheet. And most of them are not aware of the CONGU change of a few years ago.

At my club, I hear many members discussing WHS casually within their groups, and I'm often asked for clarification if I'm in their presence (as handicap sec). There are still many misconceptions, such as:

• They often assume that every round MUST be submitted, social rounds included.
• That they'll get a lot more shots at harder courses (golfers at all handicap levels). Not one has realised that it's the higher handicappers that will get relatively more shots at "harder" courses, not all golfers generally. When I say harder, I mean for higher handicappers, not in terms of scratch golfers and Course Rating.
• That Slope purely represents course difficulty for all golfers.
• That they will be aiming for 36 points regardless of the course they play in order to play to handicap.
• Not one has realised playing handicap will be 95% of course handicap for stroke play, but 100% for match play

So, I am finding that golfers in general, that have nothing to do with sitting in Committees, are interested in what WHS will do. From speaking to members, and reading comments on forums, I think the very general feeling for these types of golfers is that WHS will be fairer for members at different clubs. Which may well be true to some extent, as it now takes into account the relative difference between low and high handicappers. But, crucially, their reasoning that it will be fairer is probably incorrect, in that they firstly don't understand the SSS currently, and that they think they'll be given a tone more shots at harder courses. A player who has a 10 course handicap at an easy course, for example, may expect to be playing off 14-15 at a much harder course. They may well get a big shock when they find out they get no real increase. At my course, the difference between the SSS (CR) between yellow and white tees is 2 shots. But, most golfers will have the same handicap on both courses as the difference in slope is marginal (130 versus 133). I am predicting now that most golfers are going to be very confused when they've to play of the same handicap on both courses

 

[duncan mackie]

"I am predicting now that most golfers are going to be very confused when they've to play of the same handicap on both courses"

But this sentence clearly shows the problems of try to explain everything to anyone!

Yes, they may well have the same course handicap but they aren't aiming for the same net score. In fact the situation here will be exactly the same as currently for most golfers, because the relative ratings say they should be.

Which begs the question why they should be confused - other than the obvious fact that it's all very confusing in the detail/theory.

Until you can point to a golfers revised WHS index and work through the practical side of things against his course metrics (past and future) it will remain a matter of 'confusion for anyone who isn't interested in spending many, many, hours working through all of the information currently available and staying away from those questions that still don't have answers (there are many around software and databases!).

For those from a CONGU background the biggest issue will be the increased allowance for those with higher handicaps - even at 133 a 5 handicapper will be giving the 18 handicap opponent significantly more than the current 13 (15 assuming exact handicaps) but without being able to look at this against new handicap index figures, rather than current CONGU handicaps, it's more scaremongering than just confusing.

 

[Swango1980]

"I am predicting now that most golfers are going to be very confused when they've to play of the same handicap on both courses"

But this sentence clearly shows the problems of try to explain everything to anyone!

Yes, they may well have the same course handicap but they aren't aiming for the same net score. In fact the situation here will be exactly the same as currently for most golfers, because the relative ratings say they should be.

Which begs the question why they should be confused - other than the obvious fact that it's all very confusing in the detail/theory.

Until you can point to a golfers revised WHS index and work through the practical side of things against his course metrics (past and future) it will remain a matter of 'confusion for anyone who isn't interested in spending many, many, hours working through all of the information currently available and staying away from those questions that still don't have answers (there are many around software and databases!).

For those from a CONGU background the biggest issue will be the increased allowance for those with higher handicaps - even at 133 a 5 handicapper will be giving the 18 handicap opponent significantly more than the current 13 (15 assuming exact handicaps) but without being able to look at this against new handicap index figures, rather than current CONGU handicaps, it's more scaremongering than just confusing.

Many golfers are already confused by CONGU and SSS. I'd predict the majority of golfers simply assume they are aiming for 36 points, and then believe course difficulty makes it unfair when competing against members at harder courses. It seems to me that many golfers believe the WHS will sort this out by giving golfers a much nicer handicap at harder courses. So, I'm anticipating the confusion and surprise by many when they find out this will not be the case. They will now need to understand CR in the same way they should understand SSS, but will also need to understand the purpose of Slope.

I'm not criticising WHS by the way, I'm just saying that it is not wise to dismiss how the general golfer may react when WHS comes in to play, given they will have no-where near as much experience or knowledge in the system as those who have actively been involved with both CONGU and WHS. It's all well and good simply saying WHS is fairer and will work seemlessly, but I don't think that will appease a lot of golfers who are struggling to get their head around it. In all honesty, we have seen the confusion by many on golf monthly alone, and a lot of posters are probably a lot more experienced in golf related issues than your average golfer who doesn't bother with forums or Committees.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

The R&A and the USGA are both saved by the fact that golf participation is declining. If the game were in a growth boom, they'd both be susceptible to a new, competing sanctioning body that offered rules people that could understand.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

One question I have been asked a few times is we are not including 4BBB in the new WHS from the start in CONGU.

Having rehearsed the arguments around slow play (everyone putts out) and the lack of a satisfactory solution to what score to allocate to team members who don't have to complete the hole I then get asked - "well what do the Americans do is they are going to count 4BBB scores?"

I don't know what you would put as the second score if the first team member completes the hole - does anybody know?

 

[Swango1980]

One question I have been asked a few times is we are not including 4BBB in the new WHS from the start in CONGU.

Having rehearsed the arguments around slow play (everyone putts out) and the lack of a satisfactory solution to what score to allocate to team members who don't have to complete the hole I then get asked - "well what do the Americans do is they are going to count 4BBB scores?"

I don't know what you would put as the second score if the first team member completes the hole - does anybody know?

As far as I have read, they just take a guess at what they might have got. if they picked up 150 yards from green, I guess there is a huge margin of error. It would be interesting to find out if that is the case.

Opponents both pick up after messing up their drives. You both win the hole, pick your balls up from fairway, stick us both down for eagle thank you very much

 

[rulefan]

One question I have been asked a few times is we are not including 4BBB in the new WHS from the start in CONGU.

Having rehearsed the arguments around slow play (everyone putts out) and the lack of a satisfactory solution to what score to allocate to team members who don't have to complete the hole I then get asked - "well what do the Americans do is they are going to count 4BBB scores?"

I don't know what you would put as the second score if the first team member completes the hole - does anybody know?

When a player starts a hole but does not hole out for a valid reason, subject to other provisions set out within the Rules of Handicapping, the player must record their most likely score or net double bogey, whichever is lower, as appropriate for the situation and depending on the format of play.
The most likely score is:
The number of strokes already taken to reach a position on a hole, plus
The number of strokes the player would most likely require to complete the hole from that position, plus
Any penalty strokes incurred during play of the hole.

Most likely scores should be determined on any hole in accordance with the following guidelines:
If the ball lies on the putting green, and is no more than 5 feet (1.5 metres) from the hole:
... Add one additional stroke.
If the ball lies between 5 feet (1.5 metres) and 20 yards (20 metres) from the hole:
... Add 2 or 3 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player.
If the ball lies more than 20 yards (20 metres) from the hole:
... Add 3 or 4 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

I think that it would take longer to consider the above options than to just putt out.

With the senior reprobates who comprise my circle of playing partners, the scorecards turned in probably aren't worth the card stock on which they're printed.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

When a player starts a hole but does not hole out for a valid reason, subject to other provisions set out within the Rules of Handicapping, the player must record their most likely score or net double bogey, whichever is lower, as appropriate for the situation and depending on the format of play.
The most likely score is:
The number of strokes already taken to reach a position on a hole, plus
The number of strokes the player would most likely require to complete the hole from that position, plus
Any penalty strokes incurred during play of the hole.

Most likely scores should be determined on any hole in accordance with the following guidelines:
If the ball lies on the putting green, and is no more than 5 feet (1.5 metres) from the hole:
... Add one additional stroke.
If the ball lies between 5 feet (1.5 metres) and 20 yards (20 metres) from the hole:
... Add 2 or 3 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player.
If the ball lies more than 20 yards (20 metres) from the hole:
... Add 3 or 4 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player.

Just for clarity, who makes the assessment? The player or the person marking the card?

 

[rulefan]

The player. But scores are open to peer review and may be challenged. But the self calculation is only appropriate when adjusted round scores are entered (in the US primarily). It wouldn't arise when scores are entered hole by hole gross (a CONGU requirement), as the system does the adjustment.

 

[cliveb]

Most likely scores should be determined on any hole in accordance with the following guidelines:
If the ball lies on the putting green, and is no more than 5 feet (1.5 metres) from the hole:
... Add one additional stroke.

Crikey that's generous.
Nobody has a 100% success rate on 5ft putts.
I'd guess that even a PGA tour player probably misses at least 1 in 10.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

The player. But scores are open to peer review and may be challenged. But the self calculation is only appropriate when adjusted round scores are entered (in the US primarily). It wouldn't arise when scores are entered hole by hole gross (a CONGU requirement), as the system does the adjustment.

Sorry not sure I understand. If the player is 20 yards away in 2 and gives themself a 4 rather than a 5 how will the system adjust this?

 

[rulefan]

Sorry not sure I understand. If the player is 20 yards away in 2 and gives themself a 4 rather than a 5 how will the system adjust this?

Good point. The 'system' in this case would be his marker.

 

[rulie]

Good point. The 'system' in this case would be his marker.

I doubt very much that "markers" exist in social games. Do you have a "marker" in bounce games?

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I doubt very much that "markers" exist in social games. Do you have a "marker" in bounce games?

Well if it's going to be an Acceptable Round - then yes

 

[rulie]

I think it depends on which association specifies "acceptable". I'm in North America and 90% of my handicap acceptable rounds (75 last year) don't have a "marker" as defined.

 

[Swango1980]

I think it depends on which association specifies "acceptable". I'm in North America and 90% of my handicap acceptable rounds (75 last year) don't have a "marker" as defined.

Perhaps easily open for abuse? P.S. not saying that applies to you personally

 

[rulie]

Perhaps easily open for abuse? P.S. not saying that applies to you personally

See Rule 1.2a

 

[Swango1980]

I kn

See Rule 1.2a

I know the rule, and what the Committee can do if they suspect foul play. But, you are assuming that the player will be found out. I'd imagine it would be easy enough for a player to manipulate their scores without making it overly obvious, and very difficult for Committee to prove. At least with a marker, it might be a bit harder.

If I went out 3 times a week on my own for a bit of practice, it's hardly qualifying conditions either, so unusual it should count for handicap. Even if I tried my best, mentally it's completely different to a competitive round.

Anyway, if some players were handing in lots of rounds where they just went out on their own, I'd be dubious about those scores. I'd even doubt some of them even know the rules, and they wont have a marker to maybe at least give them some guidance.