It is normally possible to verify a players score by cross checking with the markers card.
What do you mean here ?
It is normally possible to verify a players score by cross checking with the markers card.
I think that is a terrible idea. As soon as a player scores a round of their life (and we all have them), then it may take them 40 or 50 rounds to get a handicap that enables them to play to handicap again. That could take years.WHS is now bonkers complicated, too complicated. The previous system and WHS are easy to manipulate. So there's the problem. I think the old system was better, but take out the buffer zone rubbish, why complicate? How to stop the fiddlers? I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If anyone puts a net score in that's below par, then their H/C should be reduced down to what they have just scored, assuming it is lower than their current H/C. Any increase in handicap is only point one per game played that does not have a net score lower than par for the course played.
What do you mean here ?
Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.In a comp with a booked start sheet the person checking the scores will be able to see which players went out together and virtually all players record their own score in the markers column.
So it is a simple case of comparing scores in the markers column on one card with another card to see who was the marker and cross checking the gross score between the two cards.
I do it as many markers have got my score wrong in the past.Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.
If I'm marking your card and I only mark your score and not mine...how do I check my scores on my card are correct before signing it.....?Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.
Exactly.If I'm marking your card and I only mark your score and not mine...how do I check my scores on my card are correct before signing it.....?
If I haven't put them in the Marker's box then I've got nothing to check, against.....
Against your memory? You know what scores you had, and probably the gross and/or stableford total. Its enough to spot an error on your markers card before you sign.If I'm marking your card and I only mark your score and not mine...how do I check my scores on my card are correct before signing it.....?
If I haven't put them in the Marker's box then I've got nothing to check, against.....
And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?Against your memory? You know what scores you had, and probably the gross and/or stableford total. Its enough to spot an error on your markers card before you sign.
And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?
No problem for me but an awful lot of people can't remember what ball they're using....
You can't rely on memory.
Presumably, whe WHS committee looked at a sea of such data. If the above were correct, it looks like 0.85 would be the singles competition factor. Is it known if they chose 0.95 because the quoted data is wrong and WHS has the correct data, or, because WHS decided that they must discriminate against low handicappers, and skew the system so that 30+ hc are given a two shot advantage.
Depends how you define 'great round'!So higher H/C's are more likely to have great rounds?
When I count over 80 then it doesn't matter.And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?
No problem for me but an awful lot of people can't remember what ball they're using....
You can't rely on memory.
I believe the quoted probabilities from Dean Knuth apply to the old USGA system, not WHS, so are likely to be slightly off. Further, over handicap rounds must also be considered when evaluating equity, so these figures cannot be used in isolation.Presumably, whe WHS committee looked at a sea of such data. If the above were correct, it looks like 0.85 would be the singles competition factor. Is it known if they chose 0.95 because the quoted data is wrong and WHS has the correct data, or, because WHS decided that they must discriminate against low handicappers, and skew the system so that 30+ hc are given a two shot advantage.
(and lets not confuse it with the 50-points-to-have-a-chance problem. Thats clearly a different issue, and specific to some problem clubs)?
Can you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?I believe the quoted probabilities from Dean Knuth apply to the old USGA system, not WHS, so are likely to be slightly off. Further, over handicap rounds must also be considered when evaluating equity, so these figures cannot be used in isolation.
Additionally, the .95 allowance for individual stroke play is deemed equitable for medium sized fields but inequitable in larger fields when a lower allowance is suggested. It is therefore CONGU's mandate that skews the system against lower handicappers in larger fields.
According to WHS, 30 is medium size. There is no specific suggested allowance, just advice that committees may want to reduce the allowances as field size increases.Can you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?
I believe 30 is the boundary point https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-game/handicap-allowances-under-whsCan you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?
I never remember reading that in the manual. Just the 30 limit, but nothing above it (maybe it is there, and I missed it)According to WHS, 30 is medium size. There is no specific suggested allowance, just advice that committees may want to reduce the allowances as field size increases.