WHS doesn't work

[wjemather]

That is pretty much exactly the point Bdill93 was highlighting. I suspect he thinks they should account for course difficulty, like they do in the rest of the world.

It never did before WHS, which is the reason CONGU didn't adopt it (CR-par) with WHS. That so many people have difficulty in understanding something that hasn't changed just highlights how few actually understood SSS and CSS (and par).

 

[Swango1980]

It never did before WHS, which is the reason CONGU didn't adopt it (CR-par) with WHS. That so many people have difficulty in understanding something that hasn't changed just highlights how few actually understood SSS and CSS (and par).

Nobody says the previous system was perfect either.

However, one of the huge marketing points of WHS was "your handicap will change from course to course based on difficulty". That statement was hugely misleading. Handicap was only adjusted based on relative difficulty to other golfers of different ability, but that is too hard for most regular golfers to really get their head around. However, going to very hard and easy courses, most golfers would have expected to see noticeable changes. Golfers of all abilities. They didn't, and they were misled by the marketing.

Everywhere else in the world got what we thought we were getting though.

If the argument is "well, that is what we did before", then why didn't we just stick to what we did before then, completely?

 

[Bdill93]

Pre WHS you would have had the same amount of shots on every course you played, what are you moaning about?

I'm moaning because its bull....

My course is easy, if handicaps were truly portable, when playing somewhere harder you should get more shots. Plain and simple. If WHS hasn't addressed this, which is clearly hasn't, what was the point in the first place?

Gemma (I think that was her name) from England Golf when on the rick shiels pod described it as such, but in reality it doesn't work. My course is almost 600 yards shorter and nowhere near as challenging as Hayling was, but apparently I should be able to play to 12 at both? Absolutely on crack thinking that.

 

[Bdill93]

Nobody says the previous system was perfect either.

However, one of the huge marketing points of WHS was "your handicap will change from course to course based on difficulty". That statement was hugely misleading. Handicap was only adjusted based on relative difficulty to other golfers of different ability, but that is too hard for most regular golfers to really get their head around. However, going to very hard and easy courses, most golfers would have expected to see noticeable changes. Golfers of all abilities. They didn't, and they were misled by the marketing.

Everywhere else in the world got what we thought we were getting though.

If the argument is "well, that is what we did before", then why didn't we just stick to what we did before then, completely?

THANK YOU!!!

Not just me and you've worded it better than I could.

Its simply not a portable handicap and it was supposed to be

I also understand all the ideas behind CSS, SSS and CR etc thanks to this thread - but none of the responses actually tell me why I don't get more shots at a tougher course, like you should do.

A 12 handicapper from my club would be on par with a 16 at most I reckon, if not worse.

 

[AussieKB]

P.S. I hate the F.....ing system but hey i"m on single figures and the majority of us in OZ are the same.
I new the first time it came out and we went and played another course, everyone from my club got 2 - 3 extra shots, I got zero,
so I had to give them 2 - 3 shots then on our home course.....how is that fair ?

 

[patricks148]

P.S. I hate the F.....ing system but hey i"m on single figures and the majority of us in OZ are the same.
I new the first time it came out and we went and played another course, everyone from my club got 2 - 3 extra shots, I got zero,
so I had to give them 2 - 3 shots then on our home course.....how is that fair ?

I'd been off 5 for years and and used to reg go up and down between 4 and 5, when it changed they cocked up my home club as I'd had winter membership at the other club in Nairn while they did our course changes. Played a dozen or so NQ comps and was given 1.8? . Luckily when it was sorted at my club down to 3.4, down 2 shots??

 

[Deleted member 30522]

THANK YOU!!!

Not just me and you've worded it better than I could.

Its simply not a portable handicap and it was supposed to be

I also understand all the ideas behind CSS, SSS and CR etc thanks to this thread - but none of the responses actually tell me why I don't get more shots at a tougher course, like you should do.

A 12 handicapper from my club would be on par with a 16 at most I reckon, if not worse.

Nope sorry, your playing handicap does adjust to different courses under WHS, and it's utter BS.

Course ratings are different for every course (The old SSS) and your handicap was worked out in relation to that rather than par, ergo your handicap should have been equal anywhere you went because everyone plays to their home course SSS not par.

The problem was SSS was wrong in many cases, *but* it's the only part of WHS that hasn't changed (OK a little bit in that the decimal point is now shown on CR). There was nothing wrong with the handicap system, only course ratings, the glaring methodology erros needs to be reviewed, but they won't be as they don;t seem to have any clue that the issue is there rather than playing handicaps.

 

[wjemather]

I'm moaning because its bull....

My course is easy, if handicaps were truly portable, when playing somewhere harder you should get more shots. Plain and simple. If WHS hasn't addressed this, which is clearly hasn't, what was the point in the first place?

Gemma (I think that was her name) from England Golf when on the rick shiels pod described it as such, but in reality it doesn't work. My course is almost 600 yards shorter and nowhere near as challenging as Hayling was, but apparently I should be able to play to 12 at both? Absolutely on crack thinking that.

You do get more strokes relative to the Course Rating.

 

[wjemather]

P.S. I hate the F.....ing system but hey i"m on single figures and the majority of us in OZ are the same.
I new the first time it came out and we went and played another course, everyone from my club got 2 - 3 extra shots, I got zero,
so I had to give them 2 - 3 shots then on our home course.....how is that fair ?

It's the old system that gave lower handicappers a significant advantage. It's the old system that wasn't "fair".

 

[bobmac]

It's the old system that gave lower handicappers a significant advantage. It's the old system that wasn't "fair".

Now look at who is talking rubbish

 

[Bdill93]

You do get more strokes relative to the Course Rating.

Par 69, CR 67.1 (whites) and 65.8 (yellows) at home versus par 71, CR 71.4 (whites) and 70.1 (yellows) at Hayling.

So Haylings Yellows are 3 shots harder than our whites going by CR

I play off 13 at Raven (Course Handicap) off the whites

I played off 13 at Hayling off the yellows.

Where are the 3 shots going if they aren't being added to my course handicap? Are you going to tell me its something to do with a 67 rated course with a 69 par?

 

[wjemather]

Nope sorry, your playing handicap does adjust to different courses under WHS, and it's utter BS.

Course ratings are different for every course (The old SSS) and your handicap was worked out in relation to that rather than par, ergo your handicap should have been equal anywhere you went because everyone plays to their home course SSS not par.

The problem was SSS was wrong in many cases, *but* it's the only part of WHS that hasn't changed (OK a little bit in that the decimal point is now shown on CR). There was nothing wrong with the handicap system, only course ratings, the glaring methodology erros needs to be reviewed, but they won't be as they don;t seem to have any clue that the issue is there rather than playing handicaps.

SSS was not "wrong"; like Course Rating, it simply only accounted for scratch golfers. Slope accounts for higher handicappers and levels the playing field - this levelling is the root of most gripes by lower handicappers.

The old handicap system was designed in and for a pre-technology age and as a result, while functional, had many things wrong with it and required constant intervention from handicap secretaries.

 

[wjemather]

Now look at who is talking rubbish

Given your total and utter lack of knowledge on the subject, and complete aversion to learning anything about it, I'm at a loss to understand why you insist on commenting (mostly just making snide remarks) on these threads.

 

[wjemather]

Par 69, CR 67.1 (whites) and 65.8 (yellows) at home versus par 71, CR 71.4 (whites) and 70.1 (yellows) at Hayling.

So Haylings Yellows are 3 shots harder than our whites going by CR

I play off 13 at Raven (Course Handicap) off the whites

I played off 13 at Hayling off the yellows.

Where are the 3 shots going if they aren't being added to my course handicap? Are you going to tell me its something to do with a 67 rated course with a 69 par?

Your 'play to handicap' nett score is 67 off the whites at home and 70 off the yellows at Hayling - 3 strokes difference.

Your equivalent Stableford score (which takes par into account) would be 38 off the whites at home and 37 off the yellows at Hayling - 1 point difference.

If the Course Handicap was adjusted like it is outside GB&I, your CH would be 1.9 lower (than now) at home and 0.9 lower at Hayling - 1 stroke difference. Your 'play to handicap' nett score would then be par and Stableford 36 at all courses.

 

[bobmac]

Given your total and utter lack of knowledge on the subject, and complete aversion to learning anything about it, I'm at a loss to understand why you insist on commenting (mostly just making snide remarks) on these threads.

Just one last question... what is your handicap?

 

[Swango1980]

Just one last question... what is your handicap?

I think his Index is 54.0 ..... only jesting

 

[wjemather]

Just one last question... what is your handicap?

0.4

 

[AussieKB]

I think his Index is 54.0 ..... only jesting

I am playing off 2 tomorrow (truthfully) but hopefully am dropping a flag and will go out to 10....(jesting)

 

[Bdill93]

Your 'play to handicap' nett score is 67 off the whites at home and 70 off the yellows at Hayling - 3 strokes difference.

Your equivalent Stableford score (which takes par into account) would be 38 off the whites at home and 37 off the yellows at Hayling - 1 point difference.

If the Course Handicap was adjusted like it is outside GB&I, your CH would be 1.9 lower (than now) at home and 0.9 lower at Hayling - 1 stroke difference. Your 'play to handicap' nett score would then be par and Stableford 36 at all courses.

I don't care about stableford scores etc - I know my course is 38 to handicap,

So what you've told me is, my course handicap at Raven should be lower? Would that in turn eventually raise my HI? Because I cant play much lower than I am... certainly couldn't play to 11.

 

[wjemather]

So what you've told me is, my course handicap at Raven should be lower? Would that in turn eventually raise my HI? Because I cant play much lower than I am... certainly couldn't play to 11.

If we changed to use the same calculation as outside GB&I (which includes the "Course Rating - Par" adjustment), your Course Handicap at home would (most likely) be 2 strokes lower than it is now, so 11 from the whites (the actual difference is 1.9, so it could be just 1 stroke lower for some indexes - due to rounding).

The Handicap Index calculation is the same (using your adjusted gross relative to CR and adjusted for Slope - course handicap and par are irrelevant other than for nett double bogey adjustments), so your HI would be the same.