WHS doesn't work

[Bdill93]

I must say that since Divisions came in on 1st April at my club I've heard far less moaning!

Really glad the committee took up my idea and the members voted for it!!

 

[IJames]

There was no differential under CONGU, your gross score showed in your record along with the stabelford adjustment if applicable that then showed immediately if you were in or out of buffer, or getting a cut.
With WHS (which only started in 2022) the customer facing software Apps are only showing the differential after any stableford adjustment has been made, your actual gross score is condemned to history. It's just over a year WHS has been live, how long dotgolf have been on the go is irrelevant. And bugs in their system, don't get me started on that, it's appaling at present.

From what I can detect, that's a WHS rule, not a software Apps quirk!
To the question 'What is WHS score differential?' here's the reply!

Under the WHS, the “score differential” that goes into your handicapping record is your gross score (adjusted to reduce the effect of bad holes) measured against the Course Rating, and then adjusted so that it reflects your ability round a course of a slope rating of 113.

There's a line in Hamlet Act 3 Scene 2 - starting wih 'Methinks' - that seems to apply!

 

[woofers]

We had a Greensomes comp at the weekend, and I was trying to figure out how "reasonable" the handicap was when comparing to Foursomes. For foursomes, the Hcp is 50% the combined. Greensomes a bit different, 60% of low, 40% of high. However, as both myself and my partner had the same HCP, our handicap would be the same in both formats.

So, comparing 2 scratch golfers (HCP 0 in both formats), 2 10 handicappers (HCP 10 in both formats) and 2 20 handicappers (HCP 20 in both formats), surely Greensomes is favouring the higher handicappers? Foursomes there are no mulligans. Greensomes is essentially Texas Scramble off the tee, then foursomes thereafter. That is bound to benefit the higher handicap teams, who have more shockers off the tee they can wipe out, where scratch golfers may simply be choosing to take one of two perfectly good drives on most holes. I'm not complaining, I'm not a scratch golfer, and so we did well. But, I definitely feel we'd have had a much better advantage over a lower handicap pair, an advantage we'd not have had if it had been Foursomes.

Unsure of the relevance of this post to the thread title “WHS doesn’t work” ?

 

[Swango1980]

Unsure of the relevance of this post to the thread title “WHS doesn’t work” ?

Because the Playing Handicaps are documented in the WHS Manual, and I was suggesting they might be questionable (i.e. might not work).

It was also the easiest findable thread related to WHS I could quickly find.

 

[IJames]

Because the Playing Handicaps are documented in the WHS Manual, and I was suggesting they might be questionable (i.e. might not work).

It was also the easiest findable thread related to WHS I could quickly find.

Seems to be how most of the posts arrive! Name change to 'WHS Issues' perhaps?

 

[HampshireHog]

We had a Greensomes comp at the weekend, and I was trying to figure out how "reasonable" the handicap was when comparing to Foursomes. For foursomes, the Hcp is 50% the combined. Greensomes a bit different, 60% of low, 40% of high. However, as both myself and my partner had the same HCP, our handicap would be the same in both formats.

So, comparing 2 scratch golfers (HCP 0 in both formats), 2 10 handicappers (HCP 10 in both formats) and 2 20 handicappers (HCP 20 in both formats), surely Greensomes is favouring the higher handicappers? Foursomes there are no mulligans. Greensomes is essentially Texas Scramble off the tee, then foursomes thereafter. That is bound to benefit the higher handicap teams, who have more shockers off the tee they can wipe out, where scratch golfers may simply be choosing to take one of two perfectly good drives on most holes. I'm not complaining, I'm not a scratch golfer, and so we did well. But, I definitely feel we'd have had a much better advantage over a lower handicap pair, an advantage we'd not have had if it had been Foursomes.

So what are you advocating? A %reduction or a different split?

Typically, our men’s greensomes comp require each player to take a minimum no of drives (7 or 8), which reduces the advantage to the high handicap pairings.

Our mixed comps have no minimum so I always try and take the ladies drive.

 

[doublebogey7]

Because the Playing Handicaps are documented in the WHS Manual, and I was suggesting they might be questionable (i.e. might not work).

It was also the easiest findable thread related to WHS I could quickly find.

These were the percentages used by most clubs way before WHS game in, not sure why you think this is wrong now when it wasn't under the old handicapping system. I've read yo ur original post and frankley cant understand from that why you think these percentages favour higher handicappers. Seems to me you've been drawn into thinking that scores in greensomes should be simlar to scores in foursomes when that is not the aim of the using these percentages.

 

[woofers]

Because the Playing Handicaps are documented in the WHS Manual, and I was suggesting they might be questionable (i.e. might not work).

It was also the easiest findable thread related to WHS I could quickly find.

As pointed out above, the 60/40 greensomes and 50/50 foursomes allowances were in operation well before the introduction of WHS.
The discussions on here regarding Apps, affiliation fees and the above allowance really have nothing to do with “WHS doesn’t work”.
I may be in a minority but I think the WHS is a good system, much better than the one it replaced. The component parts (course rating, slope rating) may need amending for some courses, but the basic rationale and calculations are sound in my opinion.

 

[Backsticks]

As pointed out above, the 60/40 greensomes and 50/50 foursomes allowances were in operation well before the introduction of WHS.

True, but the generally accepted trend since the move to WHS for those of us who were UHS, seems to be that higher handicaps increased and lower handicaps decreased. With the pivot point about 15. Coupled with the blowing off the roof of the 28hc limit, it would seem that without a correction to those allowances, lower hcs have lost out. Whether that is simply restoring a balance, or truly disadvantaging them, I dont know.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

True, but the generally accepted trend since the move to WHS for those of us who were UHS, seems to be that higher handicaps increased and lower handicaps decreased. With the pivot point about 15. Coupled with the blowing off the roof of the 28hc limit, it would seem that without a correction to those allowances, lower hcs have lost out. Whether that is simply restoring a balance, or truly disadvantaging them, I dont know.

Surely by now people have put enough cards in that their handicaps under the old system are no longer relevant?

 

[IJames]

True, but the generally accepted trend since the move to WHS for those of us who were UHS, seems to be that higher handicaps increased and lower handicaps decreased. With the pivot point about 15. Coupled with the blowing off the roof of the 28hc limit, it would seem that without a correction to those allowances, lower hcs have lost out. Whether that is simply restoring a balance, or truly disadvantaging them, I dont know.

The UHS system was slightly distorted for high (Cat 3) players, reducing by 0.3 per shot under cap but only going up by 0.1 irrespective of how much over, so that doesn'nt surprise me! Not sure about low cappers though.

 

[Alan Clifford]

That's not a bug, that's just something that hasn't been programmed in, it's an omission.

And yes time flies, 2021 season was the start of WHS

I've got a big thick line across my spreadsheet so I think EG WHS started that November. In South Africa, it started in January 2020. Don't know about other jusrisdictions.

 

[Swango1980]

So what are you advocating? A %reduction or a different split?

Typically, our men’s greensomes comp require each player to take a minimum no of drives (7 or 8), which reduces the advantage to the high handicap pairings.

Our mixed comps have no minimum so I always try and take the ladies drive.

Not advocating anything, and not implying they were correct before WHS. It simply jumped out as being odd, as I had a foursomes one week, greensomes next, and handicap was same. Odd because Greensomes is like playing a scramble off the tee, as I explained in my initial post.

If two scratch golfers had 0 in foursomes and 2 20 handicappers 20 in foursomes, then logic would indicate these shouldn't be the same in foursomes. I'd have expected the gap of 20 between both teams to narrow my some degree in Greensomes

 

[jim8flog]

True, but the generally accepted trend since the move to WHS for those of us who were UHS, seems to be that higher handicaps increased and lower handicaps decreased. With the pivot point about 15. Coupled with the blowing off the roof of the 28hc limit, it would seem that without a correction to those allowances, lower hcs have lost out. Whether that is simply restoring a balance, or truly disadvantaging them, I dont know.

As has has been said many a time the 54 handicap limit came in long before the WHS

 

[Backsticks]

Surely by now people have put enough cards in that their handicaps under the old system are no longer relevant?

Exactly. They are no longer relevant. So by the same token, the old allowances, based on those now obsolete old system handicaps, are no longer relevant either, is the point.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

From what I can detect, that's a WHS rule, not a software Apps quirk!
To the question 'What is WHS score differential?' here's the reply!

Under the WHS, the “score differential” that goes into your handicapping record is your gross score (adjusted to reduce the effect of bad holes) measured against the Course Rating, and then adjusted so that it reflects your ability round a course of a slope rating of 113.

There's a line in Hamlet Act 3 Scene 2 - starting wih 'Methinks' - that seems to apply!

There is absolutely no reason not to have your actual Gross score shown in the software, which is the point everyone is making. It's your scoring record.

I've avoided Hamlet since school so your reference is pointless

 

[IJames]

I'll guote it then, correcting my memory glitch 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks'! Still seems appropriate!
I'm sure someone more experienced with the ins and outs of the system, like @wjemather, can point you to a report with Actual Gross shown, or there may be a way to generate a tailor mde one. The one Mel Smooth posted earlier did seem 'busy', so a compromise was probably made.

 

[jim8flog]

There is absolutely no reason not to have your actual Gross score shown in the software, which is the point everyone is making. It's your scoring record.

I've avoided Hamlet since school so your reference is pointless

The software shows the actual scorecard just click on the adjusted gross score and the card is shown.

 

[wjemather]

I'll guote it then, correcting my memory glitch 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks'! Still seems appropriate!
I'm sure someone more experienced with the ins and outs of the system, like @wjemather, can point you to a report with Actual Gross shown, or there may be a way to generate a tailor mde one. The one Mel Smooth posted earlier did seem 'busy', so a compromise was probably made.

In the app, tapping/clicking on any round in the handicap record displays the actual hole scores, with any adjusted scores in brackets.

However, I believe the original query (following the post by MS, and before BB confused matters) was about score differentials (rather than the scores themselves); i.e. after an exceptional scoring reduction, only the adjusted SDs are displayed in golfers apps/portals, with no indication of the ESR.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The software shows the actual scorecard just click on the adjusted gross score and the card is shown.

Sorry yes, I meant at a glance.