Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I won't be handing in any scores until next month, but 2 over handicap first time out will give me a 0.1 cut.
My 20th-ago score is not in my best 8.
My 20th-ago score is not in my best 8.
WHS doesn't work
- Thread starter Captain_Black.
- Start date
garyinderry
Ryder Cup Winner
The main problem with someone shooting 53 is his handicap. He had 9 pars and a birdie. I wouldn't expect someone off 33 to shoot that on a par 3 course with all the holes set at 150yards.
wjemather
Well-known member
How about if all the holes were 80 yards, or if it were a par 4 course with all the holes 250 yards?
Last edited:
garyinderry
Ryder Cup Winner
Not guys who should genuinely be off 33 no.
It shows a level of consistency not in line with a 33 handicap.
wjemather
Well-known member
Length is often the biggest factor in determining a players handicap - a result of it being by far the dominant factor in Course Rating.
Last edited:
Kennysarmy
Newbie
4 ball better ball match on Saturday.
One of the opposition I was giving 9 shots to - we lost 8&6 - worked out if I'd shot my best ever score round the 18 of gross 70 we'd still have lost haha - handicaps eh!
One of the opposition I was giving 9 shots to - we lost 8&6 - worked out if I'd shot my best ever score round the 18 of gross 70 we'd still have lost haha - handicaps eh!
2blue
Journeyman Pro
In the first year of WHS I remember seeing the scores for a B/Ball Open at Fulford GC..... where the 1st pair were 1 pt winners who came in with 55pts. Three quarters of the field were better than 40pts.
Further investigations revealed that it had been played off 100% H/cap. Cost them £50 a man to do so!!
Further investigations revealed that it had been played off 100% H/cap. Cost them £50 a man to do so!!
Swango1980
Well-known member
I did rewrite it. Because I don't disagree with your assessment that the course may well have been set up significantly differently as a plausible explanation, I just felt you could have just gone about it differently than immediately appearing to slate perfectly normal reactions to such scores. Especially if people are taking the intent of the OP in good faith, in that the scores were highlighted because they were extremely good. I wanted that to come across, rather than posting something that seemingly ruling out your theory entirely.
However, I would say that even with a significant reduction in course length, with an already short yardage relative to par on the measured course, those scores would still seem ridiculously high. So, probability wise, I'd still expect those scores to be crazy high. It didn't suprise me to hear the handicaps of at least 2 of the players were very high. So, the reality may be that both theories mentioned are true. Some players have crazy high handicaps, and they really benefited from having an extremely short course set up. That is what then lead me to my question in reducing slope. I don't think that facility was available in Club V1 when I was in my role at last club, but that was over a year ago. I remember e-mailing England Golf that is would be a useful feature. But, I think they politely told me to bog off, because they were not interested in non-qualifying rounds anyway. And, I didn't bother e-mailing the Club V1 guys, as I'm sure that would not be on their list of priorities at the time.
rosecott
Money List Winner
So, I would have expected due diligence from the club by seeking information from the player on previous playing/handicap history. I would also expect a further conversation in relation to the 9 pars/1 birdie and that previous playing/handicap history.
Swango1980
Well-known member
did they have a previous handicap?
rulefan
Tour Winner
How would you reduce (or alter) the slope? It is a function of the Course and Bogey Ratings. Unless the course is rerated and either or both are changed, the Slope cannot be changed.
Or have I misunderstood what you meant?
garyinderry
Ryder Cup Winner
D-S
Well-known member
I assume he meant CR and slope so you could use the USGA Temporary Modification table?
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix G Golf Course Course Rating Slope Rating.htm
rulefan
Tour Winner
So it may not be down to the player but the committee.
garyinderry
Ryder Cup Winner
Just had a wee nosey at a few of the clubs scores.
He had a 48 in feb when he was beat into 2nd place by a 29handicaper with 50 points.
18 Non returns that day and scores from 24 to 50.
He had a 48 in feb when he was beat into 2nd place by a 29handicaper with 50 points.
18 Non returns that day and scores from 24 to 50.
Swango1980
Well-known member
As I said, this would simply be an isolated modification, for a round that does not count for handicaps. Thus, a Committee could make a temporary adjustment to Slope, if they felt a shortened course in winter warranted it to make it fairer.
As an example, I produced a database (I was bored at work one day) in which I recorded the Course Rating and Bogey ratings of all the courses in Lincolnshire (from all rated mens tees, and all rated womens tees), along with the yardage of the course. From that, I was able to produce a mathematical best fit relationship between the ratings and yardage. For real geek alert, they were:
Men CR = 0.0046*(Course Yardage) + 41.718
Men BR = 0.0068*(Course Yardage) + 52.784
Lady CR = 0.0056*(Course Yardage) + 42.165
Lady BR = 0.0086*(Course Yardage) + 56.891
As a very general rule of thumb, I guess you could leave it at that. However, I then did try to factor in other factors / obstacles at my specific course, try and weight these off normal and winter tees, and apply an overall 15% weighting to them against the Ratings. At any rate, I essentially came up with a logical way of trying to work out what the impact would be on Slope when we played the "Winter Course", which was a lot shorter than the measured course. The calculations suggested the Slope would fall from 130 to 110 for men, and from 140 to 120 for women.
It was at that point, I felt it would be a nice idea for the Slope to be changed on Club V1 (for non-qualifiers only), where the Committee could try and account for changes to the course. I'm sure most clubs wouldn't be bothered, but in my clubs case it would have been a nice feature to try.
D-S
Well-known member
There is already a table for this produced by the USGA , see post 1453.
bobmac
Major Champion
Did no-one ever explain to you that the better you get at golf, the harder it is to win?
Swango1980
Well-known member
Yeah, but having glanced at this it only seemed to be for more smaller changes to the course? And, probably quite rightly, the changes are relatively subtle, as it is ultimately guidance to be used for calculation of a players official handicap. It would be a risk allowing clubs to change these massively, to be used in official calculations. However, I thought it would be good to be able to implement more significant changes to Slope, on the assumption the round had to be non-qualifying, but to be used when a course has big differences to their course yardage.
I suppose another way around it would be to use a similar logic, and then adjust the Playing Handicap Allowance
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
Is this meant to be joke response?
If yes ignore my next comment. The difficulty of the course has always been factored in to your handicap previously it was SSS/CSS and not par as many believe. It is just that it takes and extra calculation these days and your score will be compared against the Course rating for you handicap record.
