WHS doesn't work

[jim8flog]

can someone just clarify, in simple terms that I can relay to our old duffers, what playing to handicap actually would be? cr is 70.4 slope is 122 par is 70. assuming PCC is 0.

In possible simple terms playing to your handicap means a score which is equivalent to your Handicap Index after you take out the slope adjustment.
So take your score, deduct any extra shots you get added by slope to your H.I. and if it equals your H.I. you have played to your handicap.

It is not an exact science if you do it in your head.

In exact terms if you play a qualifying round it is when the Score Differential is the same as your Handicap Index on the WHS site (EG,SG or wherever you are)

 

[jim8flog]

Following on from the 95% discussion I run a swindle and I make every player use 95% because I understand what the 95% is all about. I still cannot make a lot of players understand what it is about. Our swindle had an away day last week and the organiser from our group insisted on 100%, I was not going to argue as it was not worth the effort.

Some of the other swindles I play in use 100% and I smile inwardly when the complaints about the high handicap players winning come out.

 

[jim8flog]

Which is why it was interesting that the player and comp info label stuck on our card for the medal yesterday contained no handicap info whatsoever - and it was stuck over the boxes where we’d normally enter it.

This reflects the guidance given by the club when WHS was launched…for any format just enter your gross score for every hole and the system will sort everything else out.

Is that more about the 2023 rule change that which meant that handicap not on the card is no longer a DQ.

The rule change to my mind was more about the fact that every club must have a computer based score recording system and handicaps will be on the recorded score automatically.

We use IG and the labels still have handicaps on them.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Following on from the 95% discussion I run a swindle and I make every player use 95% because I understand what the 95% is all about. I still cannot make a lot of players understand what it is about. Our swindle had an away day last week and the organiser from our group insisted on 100%, I was not going to argue as it was not worth the effort.

Some of the other swindles I play in use 100% and I smile inwardly when the complaints about the high handicap players winning come out.

In simple terms what is the 95% all about? I can guess but I’m not sure that I know the basis for it.

 

[IanM]

Just think, there are millions of golfers who never go near a Forum and just play the game untroubled by all the noises on here.

36 points is still Par in this world. You get 2 points for a net Par, so 18×2=36. The pages of words on why this is now technically incorrect doesn't concern them at all. They know they've done ok if they get more than 36.

They have also (largely) sussed that if a highlighted score is dropping off today, their handicap will change based on how they do against the next best. They have even got used to the paradoxical possibility of having an awful round and seeing handicap drop the following day!

My wife has the best attitude. She says, "I key in my gross and I'll check the H.I in the morning. I don't care about how it got there, I know a score in the 90s is good, over 105 is bad!"

So, Pedants keep pendanting... and have fun doing so.

 

[wjemather]

In simple terms what is the 95% all about? I can guess but I’m not sure that I know the basis for it.

Field size affects equity. 100% is equitable one-on-one (and for small fields) but not for medium and large size fields, so handicaps need to be reduced accordingly.

CONGU decided to keep things simple and mandate 95% (the WHS recommendation for medium sized stroke play fields) across all field sizes.

 

[Backsticks]

Field size affects equity. 100% is equitable one-on-one (and for small fields) but not for medium and large size fields, so handicaps need to be reduced accordingly.

CONGU decided to keep things simple and mandate 95% (the WHS recommendation for medium sized stroke play fields) across all field sizes.

Why didnt they build it in as the default, and one less number, and a refuced complexity in 95% of golf rounds ?

 

[clubchamp98]

You didn't just have one handicap under the old system - you had exact handicap and playing handicap; you also had your stroke allowance. The same concepts are now HI, CH & PH.

Yes but when I play Birkdale my handicap is different than when at home.
and it changes from course to course.
never had that under the old system.
some like it some don’t.

 

[wjemather]

Why didnt they build it in as the default, and one less number, and a refuced complexity in 95% of golf rounds ?

Perhaps giving lower handicappers an advantage in all other formats was deemed an unacceptable compromise.

 

[wjemather]

Yes but when I play Birkdale my handicap is different than when at home.
and it changes from course to course.
never had that under the old system.
some like it some don’t.

That is because of Slope.
If we still had the old system, Slope would have been adopted and your playing handicap would have been different at different courses under that system too.

 

[clubchamp98]

I'm a member of 2 clubs and I play off 5 at one and 4 the other, I also play a lot of other courses, last Thursday I was off 3, then I came 4th in a medal for a flag round and went out point 5

I know it all depends on your 20th card falling off but how does that rate how I am playing now ?

Wasn’t your lowest handicap always the one you played off until WHS .
That is a big change.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Field size affects equity. 100% is equitable one-on-one (and for small fields) but not for medium and large size fields, so handicaps need to be reduced accordingly.

CONGU decided to keep things simple and mandate 95% (the WHS recommendation for medium sized stroke play fields) across all field sizes.

That’s pretty much what I thought. Higher handicappers being prone to more significant swings above and below their CH, and so more likely to be able to chuck in something way under their CH.

 

[Backsticks]

Perhaps giving lower handicappers an advantage in all other formats was deemed an unacceptable compromise.

It wouldnt do that. Other formats would be adjusted. They are a small portion of competitive rounds. And people base their playing-to-hc feeling on singles, not other formats. So for eg, fourballs would have a factor, say 90%, instead of 85, as 95 already built into their HI.

 

[clubchamp98]

That is because of Slope.
If we still had the old system, Slope would have been adopted and your playing handicap would have been different at different courses under that system too.

Yes I know that slope changes the allowance .
as I said “ some don’t like it”

 

[jim8flog]

In simple terms what is the 95% all about? I can guess but I’m not sure that I know the basis for it.

Firstly it about understanding that Handicap Index reflects your ability and not your Course or Playing Handicap

The following figures are approximate only

So if we take 3 golfers with Handicap Indexes of 10, 20 and 30 there is a 10 shot difference between each of their abilities.

When slope is applied
the 10 may become 11
the 20 22
the 30 33.
So they now no longer have a 10 shot difference between each of them

If 95% is applied
the 10 is 11
the 20 is 21
the 30 is 31

so the difference in their abilities is maintained/restored back to 10.

 

[IanM]

so the difference in their abilities is maintained/restored back to 10.

Good explanation. The logical side of me thinks if you use several steps of maths to get back to where you started, why not just stay where you started?

 

[wjemather]

Firstly it about understanding that Handicap Index reflects your ability and not your Course or Playing Handicap

The following figures are approximate only

So if we take 3 golfers with Handicap Indexes of 10, 20 and 30 there is a 10 shot difference between each of their abilities.

When slope is applied
the 10 may become 11
the 20 22
the 30 33.
So they now no longer have a 10 shot difference between each of them

If 95% is applied
the 10 is 11
the 20 is 21
the 30 is 31

so the difference in their abilities is maintained/restored back to 10.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense; and your arithmetic is wrong (95% of 11 is 10.45, rounded to 10).

Playing Handicaps of players with HIs of 10.0, 20.0, 30.0 range from 5 to 13, 10 to 26, and 14 to 39 depending on the Slope of the course. As such, the differences between their PHs range from 4 to 13, accounting for the relative differences in difficulty.

 

[Backsticks]

Firstly it about understanding that Handicap Index reflects your ability and not your Course or Playing Handicap

The following figures are approximate only

So if we take 3 golfers with Handicap Indexes of 10, 20 and 30 there is a 10 shot difference between each of their abilities.

When slope is applied
the 10 may become 11
the 20 22
the 30 33.
So they now no longer have a 10 shot difference between each of them

If 95% is applied
the 10 is 11
the 20 is 21
the 30 is 31

so the difference in their abilities is maintained/restored back to 10.

Even with the maths mistake, what is the rationale for restoring the difference back to 10 ? Is that not the point of slope : that it should change the differential according to course difficulty difference between different handicaps ?

 

[IanM]

Remember the old saying, "My handicap travels well!"

Now they all should, although folk argue about relative slopes and course ratings!!

...."that's never a 131!!"

 

[jim8flog]

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense; and your arithmetic is wrong (95% of 11 is 10.45, rounded to 10).

Playing Handicaps of players with HIs of 10.0, 20.0, 30.0 range from 5 to 13, 10 to 26, and 14 to 39 depending on the Slope of the course. As such, the differences between their PHs range from 4 to 13, accounting for the relative differences in difficulty.

I think you missed

The following figures are approximate only