WHS doesn't work

[Alan Clifford]

I evidenced one aspect of the WHS that was shown not to work well yesterday.

We had a 4BBB Open yesterday. There was a group of 12 from one Somerset club who were all putting their individual scores on the EG app despite being told by me that that they could not do so when one player asked for his card back and another wanted to photo the card.

I recognised one of the players from last year and he was told the same thing back then.

Can you really blame the English WHS subsystem itself for the participants not knowing the rules in that jurisdiction?

 

[woofers]

I evidenced one aspect of the WHS that was shown not to work well yesterday.

We had a 4BBB Open yesterday. There was a group of 12 from one Somerset club who were all putting their individual scores on the EG app despite being told by me that that they could not do so when one player asked for his card back and another wanted to photo the card.

I recognised one of the players from last year and he was told the same thing back then.

That’s not a case of WHS not working, it’s a group of players deliberately ignoring the Rules of Handicapping that state scores from 4BBB are not qualifying scores. How would the App or WHS know that?
Do you propose to inform the secretary of the club they were from? The scores could then be deleted from their handicap records.

 

[Bdill93]

To move everyone's competition handicap up a bit or down a bit depending on whether Course Rating is above or below par.
This will have an insignificant change to outcomes of those competitions.

Play against the course is unaffected, because that remains gross score for everyone.
Under the previous system we returned nett scores against the course. Many people's thinking is still greatly affected by this. They have not changed or adapted their thinking.

For players who are seeking a non-existent equivalence of their course handicap to their handicap under the previous system, then CR-Par might help them prolong that backwards thinking for a longer amount of time. There will be a temporary period of feeling less confused by the new system for these people who continue to think that you return a nett score against the course.

It is the, "I get x shots on this course" concept that no longer exists. You do not "get shots" on a course - you return a gross score.
You "get shots" only relative to other players when playing with and against those other players.

I think people at my place are pretty aware at my place that 38 points is playing to handicap and not 36. Its not that hard to work out. I thought CR-PAR might address handicapping issues at our place but its become apparent that it probably wont. Back to me nagging the committee to get the course re-rated we go!

Also - the standard club golfer is probably pretty aware that in stroke play "getting shots" on a hole is quite irrelevant, its all about how many over par you finish in its entirety.

However in stableford comps - that's the complete reverse and knowing where your shots come is pretty relevant when it comes to scoring. Id say 80% of the field at my club lay up before a brook on our SI 1 just because the risk and reward element is too high and they know they can be "playing to handicap" by getting a bogey there (or a double if over 18 PH)

Thing is - not many play alone etc. and we pretty much all play in comps or with/ against mates most of the time.

Side note - I find it hilarious when a mate of mine says oh I shot 108 today but he's including about 6 "round downs" for holes he's blobbed/ not scored on. Really trying to drill it into him that breaking 100 is when you hole out on every hole and the total gross score is 100 - and not after your handicap comes into play...

 

[Voyager EMH]

CR-Par does not bring about a situation where 36 points, or net level par, is playing to handicap.
Some players will have a playing handicap that is equal to their course handicap and some will have a playing handicap that is 1, 2 or 3 shots lower than their course handicap.

If a 33 CH player adds 2 points to his stableford score this may not equalise "playing to handicap" either.

If he recorded 10 on a par-4 where he had a nett 9 for no points, a nett 8 remains no points, if that is the stroke index hole where extra handicap comes into play.

 

[wjemather]

CR-Par does not bring about a situation where 36 points, or net level par, is playing to handicap.
Some players will have a playing handicap that is equal to their course handicap and some will have a playing handicap that is 1, 2 or 3 shots lower than their course handicap.

If a 33 CH player adds 2 points to his stableford score this may not equalise "playing to handicap" either.

If he recorded 10 on a par-4 where he had a nett 9 for no points, a nett 8 remains no points, if that is the stroke index hole where extra handicap comes into play.

Errm... that's exactly what it does (since Course Handicap is what is actually being referenced).

 

[Voyager EMH]

Errm... that's exactly what it does (since Course Handicap is what is actually being referenced).

I think it will be very confusing for people to score one set of stableford points in a stableford competition and another set of stableford points where they add 0, 1, 2 or 3 to their stableford competition handicap in order to assess their "playing to handicap" score.
But I'm sure each will do what they feel like doing - their choice.

 

[jim8flog]

That’s not a case of WHS not working, it’s a group of players deliberately ignoring the Rules of Handicapping that state scores from 4BBB are not qualifying scores. How would the App or WHS know that?
Do you propose to inform the secretary of the club they were from? The scores could then be deleted from their handicap records.

Knowing the club they are from I doubt they have a handicap secretary

 

[wjemather]

I think it will be very confusing for people to score one set of stableford points in a stableford competition and another set of stableford points where they add 0, 1, 2 or 3 to their stableford competition handicap in order to assess their "playing to handicap" score.
But I'm sure each will do what they feel like doing - their choice.

This is a concept you alone have invented. In the real world, no-one (except you) is ever going to think this way. No-one.

 

[Voyager EMH]

This is a concept you alone have invented. In the real world, no-one (except you) is ever going to think this way. No-one.

Then please can you explain to me how scoring stableford points with reference to course handicap is not confusing?
Every stableford competition will be with reference to a playing handicap that is 95% of course handicap.

 

[woofers]

Knowing the club they are from I doubt they have a handicap secretary

OK, well there has to be a handicap committee, there must be someone to contact.

 

[rulefan]

Why don't clubs simply change some hole pars to reflect their real difficulty rather than the hole length? I reckon this would sort out many CR v Par discrepancies.
I know many clubs pushed their course pars to the limit to make the course seem to be a 'challenge' and attract the headlines. Of course visitors would then be debarred from the (headline) championship tees

 

[Old Skier]

I evidenced one aspect of the WHS that was shown not to work well yesterday.

We had a 4BBB Open yesterday. There was a group of 12 from one Somerset club who were all putting their individual scores on the EG app despite being told by me that that they could not do so when one player asked for his card back and another wanted to photo the card.

I recognised one of the players from last year and he was told the same thing back then.

Had the same problem and just informed the club through our county HC coordinator. Action has been taken and reminders sent out.

 

[Old Skier]

Knowing the club they are from I doubt they have a handicap secretary

Speak to your county.

 

[wjemather]

Then please can you explain to me how scoring stableford points with reference to course handicap is not confusing?
Every stableford competition will be with reference to a playing handicap that is 95% of course handicap.

I believe you have confused yourself by creating a novel way of understanding WHS and detaching from UHS. Since I would first have to unpick that, I respectfully decline.

 

[wjemather]

Why don't clubs simply change some hole pars to reflect their real difficulty rather than the hole length? I reckon this would sort out many CR v Par discrepancies.
I know many clubs pushed their course pars to the limit to make the course seem to be a 'challenge' and attract the headlines. Of course visitors would then be debarred from the (headline) championship tees

We rated a course last month where the two par 5s were (significantly) shorter than the recommended minimum for men (<<450 yards, dead flat, no obstacles) from all but the championship tees. The club have no desire to have different pars from different tees. As a result, the Course Rating will remain several strokes below par from those tees.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Lets have an example.

Course: Par 70, Course Rating 72.0 and Slope Rating 113.

Player with Handicap Index 36.0
Currently with no CR-Par, the player has a Strokeplay Handicap of 34 (rounded from 34.2)
Player scores 36 points with no anomalies (equivalent to 94 gross)
Score differential = 32. This is 4 shots below Handicap Index.

When CR-Par is introduced the player’s Strokeplay Handicap will be 36 (95% of 38)
Player scores 36 points with no anomalies (equivalent to 96 gross)
Score differential = 34. This is 2 shots below Handicap Index.

Introducing CR-Par does not bring the scoring of 36 points to “playing to handicap” for this player when he plays this course.

A 5-handicapper has a CH and PH that are the same. With CR-Par on the above course the PH becomes 7.
Scoring 36 points gives a SD = 5.0. This is exactly "playing to handicap".


Stableford is a strokeplay competition format where a Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay is used.

Anyone who wishes to create a stableford score for themselves using 100% of Course Handicap is free to do so as a work of their imagination.
Whether this is a help or a hindrance to understanding the new system of handicapping will vary from person to person.

The fact of the matter is that everyone returns a gross score against the course and CR-Par has no effect on these gross scores.
Your nett score, or stableford points, are relative to other players only. This is true with or without CR-Par.

We returned nett scores against the course for a very long time. It is a major change that takes time to get used to.
It does not matter what your handicap is against the course. You make a gross score against the course now.

(Please ignore all the above if you believe that no one in the real world will ever think in the way that I have here described. No one. Waste no time in contemplation or reply.)

 

[Swango1980]

Why don't clubs simply change some hole pars to reflect their real difficulty rather than the hole length? I reckon this would sort out many CR v Par discrepancies.
I know many clubs pushed their course pars to the limit to make the course seem to be a 'challenge' and attract the headlines. Of course visitors would then be debarred from the (headline) championship te

That wouldn't work at many courses.

For example, my last course was par 70, CR 67(ish). So, you could chop 3 shots off par. However, where?

There were 2 par 5's, one 570 yards uphill and the other 490 yards. So, you could make the 490 yard par 5 a par 4. May raise eyebrows, as almost no club golfer have a chance to get on in 2, but let us say we do that anyway. Still need 2 shots to chop.

So, the shortest par 4 was 290 yards, and the next was around 300 yards. Would we then make them par 3's?

The above is a suggestion. However, at very easy courses, I suggest that the expectation is that scratch golfers will make birdies, and thus be under par on a decent day. So, making par match CR, where the easiest hole par is now really equal to birdie, probably adds a whole world of confusion.

Whereas, simply adding CR-par is a suggestion that doesn't cause such problems. It simply embeds Par within the handicap, and even if one doesn't agree with the "random" nature of par, it doesn't really matter anyway. I think the only person it will ultimately confuse is Voyager EMH

 

[rulefan]

We rated a course last month where the two par 5s were (significantly) shorter than the recommended minimum for men (<<450 yards, dead flat, no obstacles) from all but the championship tees. The club have no desire to have different pars from different tees. As a result, the Course Rating will remain several strokes below par from those tees.

Unless a club has a particularly 'difficult' set of tees for their Black (say) course, in my experience, the range of par lengths available does not often require different pars for different tees on a particular hole.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Unless a club has a particularly 'difficult' set of tees for their Black (say) course, in my experience, the range of par lengths available does not often require different pars for different tees on a particular hole.

Our 9th is a par 4 from the men's yellow but a par 5 from the ladies' red. But it has the same stroke rating of 2 for both. So my wife gets to the green in 3, or at least very close, and has four shots left to put the ball in the hole.

 

[rulefan]

Our 9th is a par 4 from the men's yellow but a par 5 from the ladies' red. But it has the same stroke rating of 2 for both. So my wife gets to the green in 3, or at least very close, and has four shots left to put the ball in the hole.

I assume you mean Stroke Index.

Isn't all that taken care of in 6.2b?