WHS doesn't work

[D-S]

I never remember reading that in the manual. Just the 30 limit, but nothing above it (maybe it is there, and I missed it)

However, that is marvelous. We can have fields over 100. I wonder if that is a large field. And, system just leaves it up to the comp sec to decide or not decide, with no real logic. I imagine none do this, as they are oblivious to it, or the software does not make it easy? But, are players who play in large fields now likely to be at a disadvantage if they are a lower handicap? Surely not, as they've been slammed every time they have tried to highlight this

Lower handicappers certainly seem to be at a distinct disadvantage if the numbers quoted above are anywhere near the today reality - if they are not, it would be interesting to know what they are under the current system.

 

[D-S]

If the numbers above are true then 42 points as a winning score is at least 10 times more likely for a 30+ handicapper than for an old fashioned Cat 1 player. However as people are always quoting simply performance against par rather than against Course Rating (a true measure of difficulty) and, of course we all know that par is not a measure of difficulty, so we don’t know how ‘good’ these outlandish scores really are. If only there was a way for these scores to account for course difficulty so we would really be able to compare.

 

[wjemather]

I never remember reading that in the manual. Just the 30 limit, but nothing above it (maybe it is there, and I missed it)

However, that is marvelous. We can have fields over 100. I wonder if that is a large field. And, system just leaves it up to the comp sec to decide or not decide, with no real logic. I imagine none do this, as they are oblivious to it, or the software does not make it easy? But, are players who play in large fields now likely to be at a disadvantage if they are a lower handicap? Surely not, as they've been slammed every time they have tried to highlight this

CONGU makes allowances mandatory, so it's irrelevant. Divisions are recommended.

 

[tobybarker]

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.

the difficulty of a hole, as described by the stroke index, MUST surely be based on par.... if you made a par 3 into a par 7 instead every player would find it an easy hole

 

[Tashyboy]

Listening to the guys talk after yesterdays round, they were on about a member who has been cut one shot after all of the members had an end of year review re Handicaps. He was not happy and wanted his shot back. The club / hcap commit have said no. He is said to be writing a letter to England golf. Wouldn’t the vast majority be chuffed to be cut a shot after a good year

 

[Swango1980]

Listening to the guys talk after yesterdays round, they were on about a member who has been cut one shot after all of the members had an end of year review re Handicaps. He was not happy and wanted his shot back. The club / hcap commit have said no. He is said to be writing a letter to England golf. Wouldn’t the vast majority be chuffed to be cut a shot after a good year

I think so. I assume he had a good year? If so, I'd personally feel a bit reluctant about complaining, even if I didn't want the cut. Having a relatively successful year compared to most other golfers at club, and kicking up a stink about a 1 shot cut?

If they didn't have an overly successful year, and they felt they were getting a cut whilst others who have performed better have avoided it, then perhaps he could feel hard done by? But still, worth complaining, given it is only 1 shot and handicaps can go up pretty quickly anyway? Maybe if he had been cut a load of shots, then it would be more understandable.

I've no idea how England Golf deal with these things, but can only imagine they'll side with the Clubs decision unless there is any radical evidence they are guilty of wrongdoing or discrimination?

 

[wjemather]

the difficulty of a hole, as described by the stroke index, MUST surely be based on par.... if you made a par 3 into a par 7 instead every player would find it an easy hole

But the Stroke Index doesn't describe the (absolute) difficulty of a hole.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

the difficulty of a hole, as described by the stroke index, MUST surely be based on par.... if you made a par 3 into a par 7 instead every player would find it an easy hole

Except the SI for any hole does not necessarily describe the difficulty of the hole…the SI is set according to difficulty of the hole; place of the hole within the 18; and the SIs allocated to the holes immediately before or after the hole in question.

ETA…beaten to it…

 

[Tashyboy]

I think so. I assume he had a good year? If so, I'd personally feel a bit reluctant about complaining, even if I didn't want the cut. Having a relatively successful year compared to most other golfers at club, and kicking up a stink about a 1 shot cut?

If they didn't have an overly successful year, and they felt they were getting a cut whilst others who have performed better have avoided it, then perhaps he could feel hard done by? But still, worth complaining, given it is only 1 shot and handicaps can go up pretty quickly anyway? Maybe if he had been cut a load of shots, then it would be more understandable.

I've no idea how England Golf deal with these things, but can only imagine they'll side with the Clubs decision unless there is any radical evidence they are guilty of wrongdoing or discrimination?

As I have mentioned a couple of times on here. My driving has been very poor. £60 later and a couple of lessons it is going a lot better than expected. Now last season I started at 15.2 and finished at 17.7 suffice to say I had many a miserable day. I have said to a few lads that next season/ month I will be 60. I am playing off the Yellows. Suffice to say a few of the vocal lads have questioned why? And how it could mess up the fuddle. I have mentioned the WHS system Allows for playing off yellows. A couple of players have backed me. Again a PP said yesterday “ you should play off whites”.
When we had finished playing yesterday I mentioned it to another PP and he said” Tash as soon as you go off the yellows you will be followed by quite a few other players in the fuddle, they want to play off yellows”.
In this instance I thin WHS works very well indeed.

 

[Swango1980]

the difficulty of a hole, as described by the stroke index, MUST surely be based on par.... if you made a par 3 into a par 7 instead every player would find it an easy hole

It depends on what format you are playing, and what your perception of difficulty is. Imagine a hole that is 500 yards long.

If that was a par 4, it would be difficult in Stableford. You'd expect it to have a very low stroke index, no surprise if it was around SI 1. Also difficult in match play. A better player will be longer / more steady than a worse player, and so likely to get to the green quicker / more safely than the high handicapper. Therefore, you'd also expect it to have a low SI.

It is was a par 7, in Stapleford most will find it "easy". Par or under should definitely be a realistic target, and therefore you'd expect to see it have a high SI. Maybe up near SI 18. However, in match play, it is the same hole as it was when it was a par 4. It is no longer the case that it is now that much easier for the high handicapper, that they no longer need their shot against the low player. Par is irrelevant in match play. So, in Match Play you'd still expect it to be a low SI.

Traditionally, SIs were set based on hole difficulty in terms of match play, albeit the order was also set to follow certain guidelines to provide a more balanced distribution of shots across the 18. It is why a lot of par 5's have a low SI, even though people might see them as "easy" in Stapleford, as they may be just under 500 yards and players feel they can easily get there in 3 shots, if not 2 on a good day. Whereas a tricky 180-200 yard par 3 (in Stapleford terms) might have a higher SI. Because, in match play, it is still the 480-500 yard hole a higher handicapper will need a shot rather than the 180-200 yard hole, regardless of what par is on either.

I know some clubs have reset their indices based on Stapleford scores. Which is fine for Stapleford, but I've had some right frustrating matches at those courses, where the indices are all over the place. Very imbalanced, and you give a shot on a short hole (say, a very difficult 3 for a good player, but a pretty easy 4 for a worse player), but then you don't concede a shot on a really long hole.

 

[clubchamp98]

Listening to the guys talk after yesterdays round, they were on about a member who has been cut one shot after all of the members had an end of year review re Handicaps. He was not happy and wanted his shot back. The club / hcap commit have said no. He is said to be writing a letter to England golf. Wouldn’t the vast majority be chuffed to be cut a shot after a good year

Thing is thought the handicap system is supposed to give an accurate state of your game.
so if it’s that accurate why are they imposing a penalty on this guy.
I can see his point, unless there is a few dodgy scores (gp cards ) in there.

 

[Tashyboy]

Thing is thought the handicap system is supposed to give an accurate state of your game.
so if it’s that accurate why are they imposing a penalty on this guy.
I can see his point, unless there is a few dodgy scores (gp cards ) in there.

I don’t know the guy in question but the conversation went like this. “ it sounds like something that Mr Y would do”. Another guy said “ who did you say”, “Mr Y”. “ That’s him but I couldn’t remember his name”. “ well what a surprise that is then”.
All I know is it don’t affect me.

 

[clubchamp98]

I don’t know the guy in question but the conversation went like this. “ it sounds like something that Mr Y would do”. Another guy said “ who did you say”, “Mr Y”. “ That’s him but I couldn’t remember his name”. “ well what a surprise that is then”.
All I know is it don’t affect me.

Yes but a good handicap system working properly we would all have accurate caps.
but swindles make their own minds up about certain players.
but should comittiees listen to gossip or the posted scores.
be good to know the reason for the shot cut.

 

[sunshine]

It depends on what format you are playing, and what your perception of difficulty is. Imagine a hole that is 500 yards long.

If that was a par 4, it would be difficult in Stableford. You'd expect it to have a very low stroke index, no surprise if it was around SI 1. Also difficult in match play. A better player will be longer / more steady than a worse player, and so likely to get to the green quicker / more safely than the high handicapper. Therefore, you'd also expect it to have a low SI.

It is was a par 7, in Stapleford most will find it "easy". Par or under should definitely be a realistic target, and therefore you'd expect to see it have a high SI. Maybe up near SI 18. However, in match play, it is the same hole as it was when it was a par 4. It is no longer the case that it is now that much easier for the high handicapper, that they no longer need their shot against the low player. Par is irrelevant in match play. So, in Match Play you'd still expect it to be a low SI.

Traditionally, SIs were set based on hole difficulty in terms of match play, albeit the order was also set to follow certain guidelines to provide a more balanced distribution of shots across the 18. It is why a lot of par 5's have a low SI, even though people might see them as "easy" in Stapleford, as they may be just under 500 yards and players feel they can easily get there in 3 shots, if not 2 on a good day. Whereas a tricky 180-200 yard par 3 (in Stapleford terms) might have a higher SI. Because, in match play, it is still the 480-500 yard hole a higher handicapper will need a shot rather than the 180-200 yard hole, regardless of what par is on either.

I know some clubs have reset their indices based on Stapleford scores. Which is fine for Stapleford, but I've had some right frustrating matches at those courses, where the indices are all over the place. Very imbalanced, and you give a shot on a short hole (say, a very difficult 3 for a good player, but a pretty easy 4 for a worse player), but then you don't concede a shot on a really long hole.

This is a great explanation. I'd never considered why my course has two par fives with a very low SI. Thanks.

Although "stapleford"

 

[rosecott]

Listening to the guys talk after yesterdays round, they were on about a member who has been cut one shot after all of the members had an end of year review re Handicaps. He was not happy and wanted his shot back. The club / hcap commit have said no. He is said to be writing a letter to England golf. Wouldn’t the vast majority be chuffed to be cut a shot after a good year

The Handicap Committee should have informed him that the next stage of appeal is to the County Union - not England Golf.

 

[Swango1980]

This is a great explanation. I'd never considered why my course has two par fives with a very low SI. Thanks.

Although "stapleford"

OMG!!!!!! I ridicule people for such a sin. Then I do that. I was obviously putting too much thought into the explanation, and my subconscious allowed me to get away with something so unforgivable

 

[jim8flog]

Listening to the guys talk after yesterdays round, they were on about a member who has been cut one shot after all of the members had an end of year review re Handicaps. He was not happy and wanted his shot back. The club / hcap commit have said no. He is said to be writing a letter to England golf. Wouldn’t the vast majority be chuffed to be cut a shot after a good year

Where I play his second step after an appeal to club is an appeal to county. I believe the county charge for an appeal and at one time it was £200.

 

[Tashyboy]

Where I play his second step after an appeal to club is an appeal to county. I believe the county charge for an appeal and at one time it was £200.

I would ask for the £200 and take it no further

 

[rulefan]

Where I play his second step after an appeal to club is an appeal to county. I believe the county charge for an appeal and at one time it was £200.

It varies from county to county. We don't (or at least didn't a couple of years ago).

 

[MiurasFan]

This is a great explanation. I'd never considered why my course has two par fives with a very low SI. Thanks.

Although "stapleford"

There's a few other guidelines, such as odds on one 9, evens on the other and neither 9 starting nor ending with a very low SI, that can affect their allocation too. Back on-topic, Divisions are certainly the way to 'protect' low cappers, who, even as a group, rarely shoot a significant number their handicap, from fast improving higher ones.