WHS doesn't work

[sunshine]

The perceived difficulty of a course is commonly relative to par, but for handicapping, par is actually irrelevant. For example, take two 250 yard holes, identical in every way except one is a par 3 and the other a par 4. For handicapping they are both rated the same - so equal difficulty - but the natural perception is that the par 3 is difficult and the par 4 easy, even though they are the same hole. Extending this to a course of 18 identical holes, it's hopefully easier to see why the same score would result in the same differential. The same applies whether or not you receive a stroke on some holes (unless nett double bogeys come into play).

This is a good point, but let let's say I expect to make a 4 on that 250 yard hole. Logically, I should get a shot if it's a par 3 but not if it's a par 4. Extending it to 18 identical holes my handicap should be 18 on the par 54 course and scratch on the par 72 course. But the system doesn't work that way.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

This is a good point, but let let's say I expect to make a 4 on that 250 yard hole. Logically, I should get a shot if it's a par 3 but not if it's a par 4. Extending it to 18 identical holes my handicap should be 18 on the par 54 course and scratch on the par 72 course. But the system doesn't work that way.

If playing outside England, you would get 18 shots if all par 3s and 0 shots if all par 4s, it's a shame us English didn't adopt the system as meant CR-Par, not sure what the reason was behind this.
Also whatever gross score you played to whether par 54 or 72 would result in the same Handicap Index

 

[OldMate]

The way they rate courses for a start....plus how many cards they enter per year.....
I enter minimum of 120 each year, no joke.

Hi AussieKB - how do you manage to enter so many per year? I was based out there many years ago and it was strictly comp scores only. I've asked mates there (all playing in Queensland) and they reckon even post-WHS they are only able to enter competition scores and not general play/non-comp rounds. Edit - I guess maybe you're just managing to consistently enter multiple comps weekly?

 

[wjemather]

This is a good point, but let let's say I expect to make a 4 on that 250 yard hole. Logically, I should get a shot if it's a par 3 but not if it's a par 4. Extending it to 18 identical holes my handicap should be 18 on the par 54 course and scratch on the par 72 course. But the system doesn't work that way.

Whether you get a stroke at any given hole depends on your Course Handicap and the Stroke Index of the hole.
If Stroke Indexes are set per WHS guidance (i.e. for stroke play, e.g. Stableford), I would expect that same hole to have a much lower stroke index as a par 3 than it would as a par 4.
However, if Stroke Indexes are set for match play (which many courses still are), I'd expect the stroke index of the hole to be the same because par is then irrelevant.

As Steve has said, the second part relates to the adoption of CR-Par in the course handicap calculation, which CONGU did not do. However, it's unlikely that such an extreme example exists - the differential between par and Course Rating is not often more than 4, and commonly less than 2, so the impact on Handicap Indexes (due to fewer/more nett double bogey adjustments) is insignificant.

 

[Swango1980]

Hi AussieKB - how do you manage to enter so many per year? I was based out there many years ago and it was strictly comp scores only. I've asked mates there (all playing in Queensland) and they reckon even post-WHS they are only able to enter competition scores and not general play/non-comp rounds. Edit - I guess maybe you're just managing to consistently enter multiple comps weekly?

AussieKB will of course give his definitive answer.

Just looking at the Golf Australia website, "Item 6. Optional Handicapping of pre-nominated social rounds" says:

"Social scores may be used for handicapping if the player's home club has chosen to allow the use of social scores, and if the player has nominated prior to starting a round that it is to count for handicap purposes. Otherwise, social scores will not be permitted for handicap purposes"

It is an interesting extract, and implies that clubs in Oz must be much more reluctant in allowing social scores?

 

[jim8flog]

so you are right about one thing..... I have no interest in learning the WHS handbook.

Along with 99.9% of golfers throughout the UK probably. In the same way the vast majority are not interested in learning the Rules of Golf thoroughly.

 

[sunshine]

Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?

 

[Bdill93]

Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?

I am Fred.

Hayling was bobs track....

 

[Swango1980]

Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?

It does, but sadly Fred and Bob make the mistake of not comparing their scores to Course Rating, and instead compare to Par. So, the WHS authority in this country would blame Fred and Bob for being ignorant of this.

In the real world, however, Fred and Bob are thinking in a logical manner. Most golfers without an in depth knowledge of the Rules of handicapping would compare their score to the Par on the card. In fact, I'd say a good amount of golfers with an in depth knowledge of WHS would still like to think like Fred and Bob (e.g. me). Therefore, the rest of the world made WHS more friendly for Fred and Bob, and factored in CR-Par. This was not to the detriment of the system, as ultimately Index is still calculated in the same way regardless. Sadly, we decided against it. Because apparently we didn't do it before (despite the fact one of the biggest misunderstandings pre-WHS was this very reason, and we could have dealt with that when moving over to WHS).

 

[woofers]

Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?

It probably does through the course slope ratings (which you haven’t mentioned). I expect Bob would “get” less than 9 shots at Fred’s course, and Fred would “get“ more than 9 shots at Bob‘s course. Using the examples you have given I doubt that their Handicap Indices would be identical.
The scenario you quote was very much the case under UHS.

 

[rulefan]

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.

How does including (CR-Par) tell you anything about course difficulty?
It only tells you if you got 36 points in a stableford you played to par. Providing there were no blow up holes in your medal round

 

[Swango1980]

How does including (CR-Par) tell you anything about course difficulty?

I'm don't want to go through this with you again. I am sure you have asked the exact same before, and I went to great effort to explain.

I appreciate, for example, how a 250 yard hole is of the same overall "difficulty" regardless of being a par 3 or 4. However, perhaps you do not appreciate a golfer would probably consider a 250 yard par 3 difficult, and a 250 yard par 4 easy?

It is how one defines difficulty, which is essentially subjective. I imagine most golfers think like me, but it seems like the handicap boffins in this country consider us fools?

But then, were the rest of the world wrong to include CR-Par?

 

[Backsticks]

I'm don't want to go through this with you again. I am sure you have asked the exact same before, and I went to great effort to explain.

I appreciate, for example, how a 250 yard hole is of the same overall "difficulty" regardless of being a par 3 or 4. However, perhaps you do not appreciate a golfer would probably consider a 250 yard par 3 difficult, and a 250 yard par 4 easy?

It is how one defines difficulty, which is essentially subjective. I imagine most golfers think like me, but it seems like the handicap boffins in this country consider us fools?

But then, were the rest of the world wrong to include CR-Par?

More a case of it being 6 of one half dozen of the other. The bottom line is the same. CR-par might ostensibly seem needed to some, but that is more an illusion. The decision to skip it here is perfectly valid, in an attempt to simplify matters. Unfortunately the different implementation in itself, seems to have added more fog than it intended to clear, simply by being different.

The score is not influenced by the perceived difficulty. The golfers score is determined by the number shots he hits - only.

 

[sunshine]

How does including (CR-Par) tell you anything about course difficulty?

You really can't tell?

 

[sunshine]

It probably does through the course slope ratings (which you haven’t mentioned). I expect Bob would “get” less than 9 shots at Fred’s course, and Fred would “get“ more than 9 shots at Bob‘s course. Using the examples you have given I doubt that their Handicap Indices would be identical.
The scenario you quote was very much the case under UHS.

Yes it definitely was the case under the old congu system, but it hasn't changed under WHS.

Slope isn't a measure of difficulty, rather relative difficulty compared to a different handicap. As WJEMather pointed out, difference between par and CR is commonly less than 2, so in my example both players have a HI of 9 even though one of them is much better than the other.

 

[Swango1980]

More a case of it being 6 of one half dozen of the other. The bottom line is the same. CR-par might ostensibly seem needed to some, but that is more an illusion. The decision to skip it here is perfectly valid, in an attempt to simplify matters. Unfortunately the different implementation in itself, seems to have added more fog than it intended to clear, simply by being different.

The score is not influenced by the perceived difficulty. The golfers score is determined by the number shots he hits - only.

Firstly, it doesn't simply matters. I'd be confident most golfers compare scores to par, and I'd even imagine most do not even know what Course Rating is. If a player had an Index of 0.0, I'd imagine they would be happy if their course rating was 4 at Wentworth (no idea what CR-Par is, so just guessing) and -3 at some "easy" course. It would seem logical, even if they were completely unaware of the calculations.

Playing off 0.0 everywhere is confusing to many, and doesn't simplify matters.

Secondly, the different implementation hasn't added fog generally. How many UK golfers have any idea how WHS has been implemented elsewhere in the world? I'd imagine most blissfully think it is exactly the same everywhere. However, only for those that do know the different implementation, it seems reasonable to ask why the UK has taken a different approach to everywhere else in the world in this respect. I suppose it could be called fog, in the sense there were maybe some foggy brains in the UK when they made that decision

 

[Backsticks]

Fred and Bob play golf.
Fred has a weak slice, but he's a member at a short and easy golf course (par 72) where he can keep it in play off the tee and reach about half the greens in regulation because the holes are short. He's been there over 20 years, knows the course inside out, and manages to knock it round in 9 over par frequently, a score of 81. His HI is 9.
Bob is a member at a long tough championship links course (par 72). He hits a good ball, but makes too many mistakes and usually expects to go round his home course in 11 over gross 81. His HI is 9.

When Bob plays at Fred's course he expects to beat his handicap, by several shots in fact.
When Fred plays at Bob's course he struggles to reach the fairway on some holes, the wind drags his weak slice into the rough. He limps in with a 20 over par 92, but realistically this is as good a score as he could have hoped to achieve.

Why doesn't WHS address this?

It does. The problem you present is flawed.

First, we have to remove the playing styles of the two players. No hc system will account for that. Only the total scores counts. (Lee Trevino couldnt play Augusta, but that didnt mean he wasnt multi-major winning standard of golfer).

We must also exclude home course familiarity. That is simply a disadvantage of playing an unknown course.

But moving to what I think is your core question, Bob and Freds 9hc are both derived based on their home course CRs. So both ARE 9s. If I understand you, you regard Fred as a less capable 9 than Bob. That is the flaw in the thinking. Playing each others courses will not have them score as you describe - they will have the same score (all else being equal) !

 

[rulefan]

You really can't tell?

Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.

 

[Swango1980]

Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.

Not strictly true. Par does have a definition after all. It is not arbitrary

 

[IanM]

course

Well I can tell you that par tells you nothing at all.

Nothing?

Why do you think that? It tells me several things. Have you ever played golf? I only ask as your reply is a suprise.