WHS doesn't work

[Depreston]

Before my mate gans in two footed is there any reason why in a singles comp that’s 95% allowance

A course handicap of 6 has a playing handicap of 5?

His index is 4.7

 

[Swango1980]

Before my mate gans in two footed is there any reason why in a singles comp that’s 95% allowance

A course handicap of 6 has a playing handicap of 5?

His index is 4.7

If you work out his course handicap as a decimal, it will be 5.5 - 5.7. So, 95% of this will bring him down to 5.

If his Course Handicap was 5.8 - 6.49, then 95% would be 6

 

[Voyager EMH]

Before my mate gans in two footed is there any reason why in a singles comp that’s 95% allowance

A course handicap of 6 has a playing handicap of 5?

His index is 4.7

In a singles strokeplay comp, Course Handicaps between 4.736843 and 5.789473 will have Playing Handicaps of 5.
I believe your mate will be somewhere between 5.5 and 5.789473 for Course Handicap.

 

[HampshireHog]

What was it then?

Genuine question, although, I'm expecting many of the regular old chestnuts of project management foul ups to be on offer

My money is on, "it was left as "whole numbers" to simplify it, not realising the calculators would come out before the ink dried on the final invoice!"

Requirements and Specifications clearly or it would never have got through testing.

 

[wjemather]

What was it then?

Genuine question, although, I'm expecting many of the regular old chestnuts of project management foul ups to be on offer

My money is on, "it was left as "whole numbers" to simplify it, not realising the calculators would come out before the ink dried on the final invoice!"

It even looked like a genuine question until you revisited to postscript it.

 

[harpo_72]

Not sure if this is a whs issue as I think it was poorly deployed in the previous system.
Basically the course difficulty is not captured. We have a slope rating but in my mind you cannot just use that as it’s too basic .. you need to factor in what the weather can do and pin positions ( or poor course prep regarding bunkers etc).
This weeks board competition saw 10-15 out of 112players break nett par and the average being par +2/3strokes .. yet none of this is accounted for. I see there is a PCC but this has not changed from 0, so it’s either wrongly configured or not activated.
I can only conclude we have falsely inflated handicaps because the good scores are not being recognised. Allowing these players to carry more strokes to the next competition.

 

[wjemather]

Not sure if this is a whs issue as I think it was poorly deployed in the previous system.
Basically the course difficulty is not captured. We have a slope rating but in my mind you cannot just use that as it’s too basic .. you need to factor in what the weather can do and pin positions ( or poor course prep regarding bunkers etc).
This weeks board competition saw 10-15 out of 112players break nett par and the average being par +2/3strokes .. yet none of this is accounted for. I see there is a PCC but this has not changed from 0, so it’s either wrongly configured or not activated.
I can only conclude we have falsely inflated handicaps because the good scores are not being recognised. Allowing these players to carry more strokes to the next competition.

Average scores of around 3 over handicap are exactly what should be expected in normal scoring conditions.

 

[harpo_72]

Average scores of around 3 over handicap are exactly what should be expected in normal scoring conditions.

Okay so if the average expected to be +3 then why for a course of par 70 the rating doesn’t equate to 73?

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Okay so if the average expected to be +3 then why for a course of par 70 the rating doesn’t equate to 73?

Because HI's are based on best 8 from 20, and not your average score

 

[wjemather]

Okay so if the average expected to be +3 then why for a course of par 70 the rating doesn’t equate to 73?

Handicaps reflect 'average best' scoring not average scoring.

Par isn't a measure of difficulty and shouldn't be taken as such. However, since April 1st, Course Handicaps have been aligned with par rather than course rating, so nett/Stableford scores (with reference to Course Handicap) can be judged against par whereas previously they couldn't.

It's also important to remember that individual competition scores include the 95% Playing Handicap allowance, so true scoring relative to handicap is actually better than those nett/Stableford scores.

 

[harpo_72]

Because HI's are based on best 8 from 20, and not your average score

Sorry I don’t see the connection.. this is about the course on the day not the past or the future.

 

[harpo_72]

Handicaps reflect 'average best' scoring not average scoring.

Par isn't a measure of difficulty and shouldn't be taken as such. However, since April 1st, Course Handicaps have been aligned with par rather than course rating, so nett/Stableford scores (with reference to Course Handicap) can be judged against par whereas previously they couldn't.

It's also important to remember that individual competition scores include the 95% Playing Handicap allowance, so true scoring relative to handicap is actually better than those nett/Stableford scores.

Par was used only as a reference point, the course rating would have been 70.xx or something.
The fact that the majority of the field are 3 strokes or more away is the issue I have with all of this.
I understand why you mentioned the 95% multiplier but reality is that’s just another fudge factor- I was actually oblivious to the strokes I was receiving I look at holes in isolation and ones that I can par/ birdie or bogey is best.. of course I account for wind/conditions and pin positions and judge my performance on those inputs.

 

[IanM]

It even looked like a genuine question until you revisited to postscript it.

No it was meant genuinely. I was interested in your inference that there was more to it than programming.

The post script was my usual attempt at levity in an otherwise dry subject.

 

[wjemather]

No it was meant genuinely. I was interested in your inference that there was more to it than programming.

Not just 'more to it than programming' - absolutely nothing to do with programming whatsoever.

It was a conscious decision to provide only rounded figures as those are the only ones players require. To provide anything else requires effort and mathematical competence from the player to get the numbers they actually need.

 

[wjemather]

Par was used only as a reference point, the course rating would have been 70.xx or something.
The fact that the majority of the field are 3 strokes or more away is the issue I have with all of this.
I understand why you mentioned the 95% multiplier but reality is that’s just another fudge factor- I was actually oblivious to the strokes I was receiving I look at holes in isolation and ones that I can par/ birdie or bogey is best.. of course I account for wind/conditions and pin positions and judge my performance on those inputs.

Getting everyone to average nett par is not an objective of handicapping.
If you wanted to do that, you could always add three strokes to everyone's handicap, but it wouldn't alter the result.

 

[harpo_72]

Getting everyone to average nett par is not an objective of handicapping.
If you wanted to do that, you could always add three strokes to everyone's handicap, but it wouldn't alter the result.

No that’s not the objective, the objective is to respect the conditions of the day.

 

[wjemather]

No that’s not the objective, the objective is to respect the conditions of the day.

If you recognise that is not the objective, why do you have an issue when it doesn't happen?
You've described scoring that is as expected under normal conditions (perhaps even a perfect example of expected scoring patterns) - there shouldn't be any playing conditions adjustment in such circumstances.

 

[harpo_72]

If you recognise that is not the objective, why do you have an issue when it doesn't happen?
You've described scoring that is as expected under normal conditions (perhaps even a perfect example of expected scoring patterns) - there shouldn't be any playing conditions adjustment in such circumstances.

No I am saying the playing conditions should be captured.. to ignore them is incorrect, especially given the amount of statistical gymnastics everyone is prepared to do in whs .. the 8 best of your past 20 rounds just measured your apparent consistency but that to is incorrect because it doesn’t account for conditions..
But never mind it’s not worth arguing over, it was all set up in good faith I am sure and I appreciate you taking the time to respond and I don’t want to cause any ill feelings.
I will content myself with the thought all our scratchers and single digit golfers are chompers

 

[wjemather]

No I am saying the playing conditions should be captured.. to ignore them is incorrect, especially given the amount of statistical gymnastics everyone is prepared to do in whs .. the 8 best of your past 20 rounds just measured your apparent consistency but that to is incorrect because it doesn’t account for conditions..
But never mind it’s not worth arguing over, it was all set up in good faith I am sure and I appreciate you taking the time to respond and I don’t want to cause any ill feelings.
I will content myself with the thought all our scratchers and single digit golfers are chompers

Playing conditions are accounted for in the only objective way possible - by analysing scoring patterns against what is expected (expectations are based on the analysis of millions of scores)
What WHS doesn't do, is try and accommodate any subjective perception of scoring difficulty.

 

[IanM]

Not just 'more to it than programming' - absolutely nothing to do with programming whatsoever.

It was a conscious decision to provide only rounded figures as those are the only ones players require. To provide anything else requires effort and mathematical competence from the player to get the numbers they actually need.

I think that's perfectly understandable and probably sensible.

I wish I'd seen something about this from the club to avoid the situation I encountered at the weekend. (Mentioned above) Wouldn't take much to explain that the calculations are done to several places of decimal, but always shown as whole numbers.

Golfers are very inquisitive, especially if they think it's cost them a shot.