WHS doesn't work

[Swango1980]

And so it continues...

The debate on,

Par of a hole.
Par of the course.
Course rating.
Difficult/easy hole or course.

with debate clouded by old system thinking.

New system,

Par of hole less important
Par of course less important
Course rating more important
All courses same difficulty/easiness by way of Course and Slope ratings.

I have over 50 years of previous systems colouring my thinking. But after two years of the new system I have managed to change my thinking.

I have wavered over CR-Par. I was in agreement with those that wanted it here at some points over the last 2 years, but I kept an open mind and I no longer see it as necessary.

For clarity. I too am very aware of how the new system works, and when viewing my scores on MyEG will always look at the Score Differentials, and compare them to what they may be replacing, etc.

So, I've zero issues with CR or Score Differentials. However, I am still personally massively in favour of including CR-Par within the course handicap calculation. It doesn't stop anyone evaluating their Score Differentials if that it what floats their boat. But, it still allows all golfers to make reasonable judgments as to how they have scored, or others, relative to their handicap, simply by looking at the scores. It just makes things much simpler for everyone as far as I can see.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Or even for 18 holes if you go round a 9 hole course twice!

No, not correct

 

[YandaB]

No, not correct

True, CONGU ignore that rule and use CR's for the full 18, I was looking at the note in 6.1a in WHS Rules of Handicapping.

 

[Voyager EMH]

For clarity. I too am very aware of how the new system works, and when viewing my scores on MyEG will always look at the Score Differentials, and compare them to what they may be replacing, etc.

So, I've zero issues with CR or Score Differentials. However, I am still personally massively in favour of including CR-Par within the course handicap calculation. It doesn't stop anyone evaluating their Score Differentials if that it what floats their boat. But, it still allows all golfers to make reasonable judgments as to how they have scored, or others, relative to their handicap, simply by looking at the scores. It just makes things much simpler for everyone as far as I can see.

Including CR-Par in the CH calculation makes that calculation more complicated, not simpler.
You can compare your scores to others by looking at gross scores and/or nett scores.
For your score relative to handicap, you can look at your differential.

Before I start my round, I can read my CH from a board, I can see how CR differs from par and the SR.
That's all I need to know to give me an idea what I need my golf score to be to play to my handicap.

But if I were a stableford thinker, like the vast majority of golfers, due to the last system engendering such, then CR-Par would allow me to continue to be a stableford thinker and that would be simpler for my brain.
At the moment CR-Par would make sense to the majority, but for those of us who are not stableford thinkers, it is not required.
I said, nearly two years ago, that it might take 4 to 6 years for the new system to change the way people think. We are not even halfway there yet.

 

[D-S]

Including CR-Par in the CH calculation makes that calculation more complicated, not simpler.
You can compare your scores to others by looking at gross scores and/or nett scores.
For your score relative to handicap, you can look at your differential.

Before I start my round, I can read my CH from a board, I can see how CR differs from par and the SR.
That's all I need to know to give me an idea what I need my golf score to be to play to my handicap.

But if I were a stableford thinker, like the vast majority of golfers, due to the last system engendering such, then CR-Par would allow me to continue to be a stableford thinker and that would be simpler for my brain.
At the moment CR-Par would make sense to the majority, but for those of us who are not stableford thinkers, it is not required.
I said, nearly two years ago, that it might take 4 to 6 years for the new system to change the way people think. We are not even halfway there yet.

It might make the maths more complicated but no one ever does the maths, they either look at the board or get it from the app, just as they do today

If CR-par is included in your CH you don’t need to do this step at all, it is baked in.

 

[Alan Clifford]

If you play with your wife, husband or similar, you have to do a course rating, arithmetic dance anyway.

 

[Swango1980]

If you play with your wife, husband or similar, you have to do a course rating, arithmetic dance anyway.

Why?

 

[Alan Clifford]

Why?

Different course ratings from different tees and for genders.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Different course ratings from different tees and for genders.

And different par on the same hole sometimes.

 

[Swango1980]

Different course ratings from different tees and for genders.

I assume you don't have to divide by 113 in your head, rather you check your course handicap from the board at club, or on your phone app?

 

[Voyager EMH]

I have not yet used a phone to play golf.
The day I am compelled to use one will be a very strange day.

I am not uncomfortable with being in a minority.
Minority views are not necessarily invalid ones.
But I do not demand or require everyone to think the way I do.
I enjoy reading other people's points of view.

 

[jim8flog]

Yes this means nothing at all

Yup I agree. Par in a pro golf tournament means nothing.

The player who goes round in the least number of shots for the specified number of holes is the winner. This board does nothing more than the show positions of each player relative to another player.

 

[Alan Clifford]

I assume you don't have to divide by 113 in your head, rather you check your course handicap from the board at club, or on your phone app?

And then adjust by the difference course ratings.

 

[AussieKB]

I am a member of two clubs, play midweek comps at both (called scroungers) Wednesday and Thursday, then Saturday comp at one of them, plus I play in our veterans for the South West of OZ, (largest in OZ) they playing 26-30 times a year mostly Monday or Tuesday.

I also play in Opens which are Sat/Sun, so quite easily well over 120.

Plus our weather makes it possible, as play all year, most of our Majors (club champs) are held in our winter months.

Just checked my Handicap register, last round was yesterday 20/10 and the 20th card was 14/9 played over 8 different courses, cost of golf here is very cheap compared to England.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1583480834853462016

 

[Captain_Black.]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1583480834853462016

No!!!
You don't say!!!

 

[Deleted member 1147]

No!!!
You don't say!!!

No I don’t…Carly says

 

[patricks148]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1583480834853462016

She should post her thoughts on here so the usual suspects can tell her shes wrong it's better now and she had it good and had the advantage too long??

 

[Backsticks]

We do seem, in this part of the world, both the most competition based golfers, and, the most mistrustful of our fellow golfers golfers.

If casual rounds are the norm for submitting cards, and formal competitions a rarity or not at all, then there is no problem. A golfer is not going to lose to his mates 5 times in a few weeks so that he can then beat them once. It makes no sense. So people raise no questions about morality or handicap building. WHS works in this scenario.

Where competitive rounds, as we in Congu-land effectively regarded them, as the only relevant rounds for handicapping, in the UHS days, people used to question handicap building to some extent. But we understood that if it were happening, it required a bigger investment. It meant entering competitions, and posting bad scores, as an 'investment' for one day payoff. It wasnt a great prospect, and so probably rarer, and more anectodal. So UHS worked.

But we seem to have carried this mentality over to the WHS era. Causal rounds for handicap adjustments seems too easy. For the mistrusting among us, it is a worst nightmare, and cheats charter. You dont even have to pay and entry fee, build a handicap over weeks or months, for that one day payoff and a possible win as you let the handbrake off and score with the turbo of your hard gained extra shots. Now you just submit rounds, at no entry fee cost, no limit to the number of rounds, and without the cap of 1 shot rise.

Our hybrid, still competition dominated golf as serious or 'real' golf, yet encouraged to submit scores as often as possible when just play friendly rounds, is just too much of a cognitive dissonance for our golfing culture ?

Ahhhhh!!!
Everybody is shooting 50 points now !
There a cheats everywhere !
I am the only honest golfer left, not gaming the system, but only posting 39 points, on a good day, with the wind behind me on both nines !

Or am I just too Congu UHS institutionalised to join the modern world ?

 

[JonnyGutteridge]

The part of WHS that doesn't work is General Play cards. Get them in the bin, scrap them, I never want to see a general play card entered ever again.

To be honest, though, I am not seeing the banditry and abuse for increases - only really for vanity handicaps, or in order to qualify for Opens with a handicap ballot.

Everyone I know who puts in general play cards is abusing the system. I have never put in a GP card, and I never will.
- People saying they'll put a card in, having a nightmare start, never submitting the score.
- People finishing a round, realising it was good, and then putting the score in afterwards having not declared it prior to playing.

The above 2 things are happening on a daily occurrence at every golf club in the country. It completely undermines the handicap system.
There's many people whereby their ALL their general play cards result in a cut. No sign of any bad scores at all. I would love to see the data, I imagine it is overwhelming obvious that General Play scoring is significantly better than competition scoring, and that is due to the 2 reasons above.

Additionally, PCC and the fact that it is not produced as a decimal place value (1dp) is annoying to me giving the ineffectiveness of PCC to actually do what it is designed to do. I would love to see adjustments of -0.1, +0.3 etc on a weekly basis.