WHS doesn't work

[rulefan]

I have said before the course is wide open as the GK has butchered the rough.

Has it been rerated? As it should have been.

 

[wjemather]

I dont remember for certain, but am I right about the reduction to max increase without interventino of hc cttee from 1.0 to 0.7 shots in a year ? If so, it does indicate concern about increase of even a shot in a year.

I don't recall that; but what does spring to mind is 7 being the number of consecutive 0.1 increases to trigger a review.

 

[clubchamp98]

What is your course rating and par?

If the course is not the same as when it was rated, and should now have a lower bogey rating, that will be contributing to better scores from higher handicappers relative to lower handicappers. That is not the fault of WHS, but of the club/greens amending the course without re-rating.

Par 72 slope is 129.
it’s a pretty tough course unless you have lots of shots.

 

[wjemather]

Par 72 slope is 129.
it’s a pretty tough course unless you have lots of shots.

Course rating?

 

[rosecott]

Because WHS has been abused by some players and a 18 capper is now a 24.
WHS is so easy to manipulate.

Mind what you say. My Low Index is 16.1, my HI is 20.7. Age has a lot to answer for - no manipulation necessary.

 

[Backsticks]

Mind what you say. My Low Index is 16.1, my HI is 20.7. Age has a lot to answer for - no manipulation necessary.

No, but nobody gets three and a half shots older in a couple of weeks - except in Whsland.

 

[clubchamp98]

Course rating?

71.7

 

[clubchamp98]

Has it been rerated? As it should have been.

Can you just call up and get it related every time the GK cuts the rough?

 

[wjemather]

Can you just call up and get it related every time the GK cuts the rough?

No. However, you implied a permanent change in how the course is setup; a change which may affect the ratings. In which case, the county rating team should be consulted to determine if re-rating is necessary.

 

[wjemather]

71.7

Par 72 slope is 129.
it’s a pretty tough course unless you have lots of shots.

These ratings (CR < Par, and Slope marginally above average) do not suggest a particularly tough course.

 

[AussieKB]

These ratings (CR < Par) do not suggest a particularly tough course.

It depends who rated the course, some of these people should never be allowed to rate a course, I would like to see the rater be made to play the course before they rate it, when they score 30 points or lower maybe their opinion would change.

 

[Swango1980]

It depends who rated the course, some of these people should never be allowed to rate a course, I would like to see the rater be made to play the course before they rate it, when they score 30 points or lower maybe their opinion would change.

I thought the entire point of the process was to ensure opinion and subjectivity was virtually removed from the rating process?

 

[Voyager EMH]

It depends who rated the course, some of these people should never be allowed to rate a course, I would like to see the rater be made to play the course before they rate it, when they score 30 points or lower maybe their opinion would change.

I'm interested to know if you've played at this place.
I've not come across a course in the UK where the CR is above par, but the SR is below 113.
What is it about this course, I wonder, that makes it such a special case?

 

[Swango1980]

I'm interested to know if you've played at this place.
I've not come across a course in the UK where the CR is above par, but the SR is below 113.
What is it about this course, I wonder, that makes it such a special case?

View attachment 46993

I found a few courses like this, usually links courses. They have a high CR as they are pretty long and play tough against par for scratch players. However, they are also very open courses, no trees, and so higher handicappers can afford to be a little wild without losing balls. I think most of the hazards are located in tricky areas for bigger hitters, but shorter hitters may find them out of reach.

 

[Voyager EMH]

This course is inland, tree-lined holes, many doglegs, usual amount of bunkers. I'm really struggling to see why the 110 slope rating.
Course rating seems to reflect overall length.

 

[rulefan]

It depends who rated the course, some of these people should never be allowed to rate a course, I would like to see the rater be made to play the course before they rate it, when they score 30 points or lower maybe their opinion would change.

A rater does not rate a course. It is a team of 3 or 4 who will have been fully trained and work to tightly defined rules. Have you ever read the Rating Manual?

 

[rosecott]

UHS was concerned about limiting increases to 0.7 I think. Revised down from 1.0 in a year.
WHS has no concern about increases up to three - which can also happen much more quickly, i.e. theoretically in fewer rounds than would have been possible under UHS. And doesnt stop there, but starts to apply a gentle brake.
That is quite a different philosophy. The rate at which a golfer's ability or potential best score can deteriorate did not change along with the change of handicap system.

As far as I remember, Ireland was the only one of the 4 nations that decided to limit the increases in one year - no such limit in the other 3 countries.

 

[rulefan]

This course is inland, tree-lined holes, many doglegs, usual amount of bunkers. I'm really struggling to see why the 110 slope rating.
Course rating seems to reflect overall length.

Possibly because the 'obstacles' are not in the target zones of bogey players and they may not have as many forced layups on doglegs.
Length is the major factor in the CR formula.

 

[D-S]

I think there is confusion as to a limit on increase under UHS (which I don’t believe there was) and the prompt to the HC when a player had 7 0.1 increases consecutively. There was then a prompt to look at the players record and consider a further 1 shot increase - there was a flowchart which was aimed at making sure only declining golfers would be affected not just a poor run of form.
This was done to speed up the process of handicaps catching up with declining golfers‘ ability outside the annual review. I don’t believe there was any limit on increases.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Possibly because the 'obstacles' are not in the target zones of bogey players and they may not have as many forced layups on doglegs.
Length is the major factor in the CR formula.

The ratings yield such a small variance to score differentials. (Done by EG calculations not GA)
5 over par - SD 4.9
9 over par - SD 9.0 (the 9-handicapper is notionally playing a course CR=level, SR=113)
18 over par - SD 18.3
This makes me think that a course with this type of ratings ought to be far more common. Yet it appears to be a rare beast.