Whs filling in a comp card

[Swango1980]

Would have been better if any of the WHS guff showed some sample cards to make it idiot proof.

England Golf Golfer Education Hub suggests we don't need as players to calculate PH.

"Playing Handicap is a stroke allowance that is implemented in order to maintain the integrity of the WHS when used in competition. The Course Handicap converts to a Playing Handicap for competition purposes and changes depending on the format of play.
Golfers do not need to calculate this (it is generated before their round). Golfers should continue to play in the mindset of their Course Handicap in competition rounds."

Dont forget WHS was designed to:
Attract more players to the game
Make the game more enjoyable
Make handicapping easier to understand
Give golfers a handicap index which is portable from course to course

1. Attract more players to the game
Will it honestly!? How many people refused to play golf previously because the CONGU handicapping system was too complicated, but are now getting their cheque books out to join a club because of the WHS handicapping system?

2. Make the game more enjoyable
How many people enjoy playing golf because of the way the handicapping system works, or are there other reasons that make it enjoyable? How many golfers did you ever see that were not having the best of times on the course, but you think will now have a big smile on their face because of the WHS system?

3. Make handicapping easier to understand
Hilarious. Previously, there was one handicap to remember, and the impact of a score on that handicap could be easily explained. Now we have Index, Course and Playing handicaps. Loads of people don't even understand Course handicaps because it seems odd they are on similar handicaps at courses of very different difficulty (as CR-Par was not included). Not to mention converting this to a Playing Handicap for different formats. Yes, golfers can continue to play in the mindset of their Course Handicap in competition rounds. However, if they do, some will be a trifle confused when their competition score is not as good as they expected. To avoid this, they need some sort of awareness of Playing Handicap

4. Give golfers a handicap index that is portable from course to course
Sort of. The CONGU handicap was portable from course to course (within the CONGU region anyway) to a reasonable extent, due to handicaps being based on SSS/CSS rather than Par.

Basically, the above words are simply marketing, trying to show WHS in the most positive light. Most of it, in my opinion, is garbage. Ironically, the biggest benefit of WHS is that it accounts for the relative difficulty between low and high handicappers from course to course, which is not on that list. Probably because they thought this was too complicated for most golfers to understand, and so they dumbed it down to be part of Point number 4. Problem is, by dumbing it down, they will confuse loads of golfers who will read that as getting more or less shots based on the ABSOLUTE difficulty of the course.

 

[rulefan]

Two points.

1) Previously, both Australia and the US had the 95% (in fact 93% and 96% respectively) built in to their CH. This was as a result of significantly large studies that showed in medal and stroke play competition, higher handicap players won a disproportionate number of competitions. (See Swango's comments above). So the adjustment was moved from the CH to the PH.
However, comparable studies showed that in match play lower handicappers were favoured (See Old Skier's comment re the 75% which was discontinued a few years ago). Even with no adjustment the lower h'cap players win 55% of matches. For a level playing field, it has been suggested that a 10% increase for the higher h'cap player may not be enough. I think the authorities thought that would be step too far.

2) In practice, there is no strong reason why a player should be concerned about knowing their PH. It is not required on the card, it isn't used in the Handicap Index calculations, it confuses matters in knowing when net double bogey has been reached in stableford comps. Its only use is for determining the competition winners and this is done more often than not by computer software, in the same way that ties are more conveniently resolved by software

 

[Old Skier]

I for one would rather promote it rather than continue to complain about a system that we have no control over and give my members every assistance to carry on playing in comps or otherwise.

For those of us that get dragged to EG Congu meetings, that's the place to question the officials.

Anyone who gives me earache about it gets told to contact EG not me as I have no ability to change anything. I also find it's the same ones that complained about SSS, CSS and par (and few understood it) are the same ones harping on now.

From a players aspect it's simple, for those who have to implement it, there is still work to do.

 

[nickjdavis]

For the one player that recorded their Index only, what happened:

a) Disqualified for not putting their Course Handicap as required by the rules
b) Not disqualified, but it was "assumed" the Index they wrote down could be considered as their Course Handicap

If (b) was selected, and if their Index would have been lower than Course Handicap, was their handicap in the system reduced until the course handicap matched their Index on the card?

PS. Interesting stats, thanks. So, only 5 actually put the Playing Handicap, which is used for the competition score. The fact 24 of them used the Course Handicap to work out their competition score is an eye opener. Thank goodness for computers.

My response will no doubt cause some angst and people demanding to know "what other rules am I choosing to ignore" but...here goes...

It was day 1 effectively of a new competition procedure....a process that I know has confused some of the most intelligent people in the land. We are going through a period in our lives that causes much stress and strain and golfers just want to get out and enjoy themselves and not be embuggered by bureaucracy and restrictive regulations. As far as I am concerned the player gains no advantage whatsoever by only recording his index on the card... I am not going to be the killjoy that DQ's him for a breach of an "administrative" rule as opposed to a "playing" rule. The situation isn't helped by the fact that we are continuing to use old cards so there is some scope for confusion there....two boxes on the card but three potential numbers to put in those 2 boxes. We are therefore adopting a policy of leniency in such regards.

So, in light of the above...I typed his name into the computer, it came up with a card for me to fill in his gross scores, I filled them in, the computer calculated his nett score based on his correct playing handicap.

We will continue with our program of education and no doubt, over the winter, players will become more accustomed to the process and such issues will disappear.

My own personal view is that I see no reason for mandating that a player puts a handicap of any type on a card in a singles strokeplay competition. Not having a number in a box makes no material difference whatsoever as to how he plays the game....after all, the player is only responsible for recording his gross score...he is not responsible for calculating stableford points or a nett score...so what is the point of putting the handicap on the card?

 

[nickjdavis]

PS. Interesting stats, thanks. So, only 5 actually put the Playing Handicap, which is used for the competition score. The fact 24 of them used the Course Handicap to work out their competition score is an eye opener. Thank goodness for computers.

Possibly even more worrying that of the 5, three were in the same group...including myself and our handicap secretary.

What I also found unusual was the guy who showed full working out from index to CH to PH played with his wife, who simply recorded CH on her card!!

 

[Swango1980]

My response will no doubt cause some angst and people demanding to know "what other rules am I choosing to ignore" but...here goes...

It was day 1 effectively of a new competition procedure....a process that I know has confused some of the most intelligent people in the land. We are going through a period in our lives that causes much stress and strain and golfers just want to get out and enjoy themselves and not be embuggered by bureaucracy and restrictive regulations. As far as I am concerned the player gains no advantage whatsoever by only recording his index on the card... I am not going to be the killjoy that DQ's him for a breach of an "administrative" rule as opposed to a "playing" rule. The situation isn't helped by the fact that we are continuing to use old cards so there is some scope for confusion there....two boxes on the card but three potential numbers to put in those 2 boxes. We are therefore adopting a policy of leniency in such regards.

So, in light of the above...I typed his name into the computer, it came up with a card for me to fill in his gross scores, I filled them in, the computer calculated his nett score based on his correct course handicap.

We will continue with our program of education and no doubt, over the winter, players will become more accustomed to the process and such issues will disappear.

My own personal view is that I see no reason for mandating that a player puts a handicap of any type on a card in a singles strokeplay competition. Not having a number in a box makes no material difference whatsoever as to how he plays the game....after all, the player is only responsible for recording his gross score...he is not responsible for calculating stableford points or a nett score...so what is the point of putting the handicap on the card?

I agree with this period of education, and also Covid guidelines may allow relaxations.

However, regarding your last paragraph. The player also has a responsibility to put their course handicap on the card. I agree, it is more of an administrative issue. However, in the long term, you will likely cause yourself a problem if you subjectively choose to ignore certain administrative rules. All it takes is the player that comes second, for example, to criticise the Committee for not abiding by the Rules.

PS. I wasn't trying to catch you out in a technical application of the rules. I am just genuinely interested how different people will deal with little issues like this.

 

[nickjdavis]

I agree with this period of education, and also Covid guidelines may allow relaxations.

However, regarding your last paragraph. The player also has a responsibility to put their course handicap on the card. I agree, it is more of an administrative issue. However, in the long term, you will likely cause yourself a problem if you subjectively choose to ignore certain administrative rules. All it takes is the player that comes second, for example, to criticise the Committee for not abiding by the Rules.

PS. I wasn't trying to catch you out in a technical application of the rules. I am just genuinely interested how different people will deal with little issues like this.

Sorry poor wording...I meant in terms of what a player is responsible for specifically in relation to his score...I didn't mean he wasn't responsible for recording his handicap which of course he is.

Surprisingly, in the best part of 13 years of being a committee member serving in various positions I've actually not processed a card without a handicap on under the old Congu regulations....players only had one number to worry about under that system so it was quite difficult to get it wrong. In the short term I'm prepared to show some clemency whilst players adjust (and taking into account the current social issues that have other knock on effects)....and in the long term, when they have adjusted, I don't envisage the issue recurring and it will be as familiar to players to put their course handicap on their card as it was to put their old playing handicap down.

Since players have been responsible for their own scorecards I've processed more cards in the last 4 months that didn't have a players name on it, than those with missing handicaps....and I'll tell you for nothing that it is far more important to have a name on a card than a handicap

 

[IanMcC]

Since players have been responsible for their own scorecards I've processed more cards in the last 4 months that didn't have a players name on it, than those with missing handicaps....and I'll tell you for nothing that it is far more important to have a name on a card than a handicap

Interestingly, and I might be shot down on this one as I am not near my rules books, you dont need to put your name on the card. That is the responsibility of the club.

 

[nickjdavis]

Interestingly, and I might be shot down on this one as I am not near my rules books, you dont need to put your name on the card. That is the responsibility of the club.

No you are right...it is the responsibility of the committee and again I guess that is a relic of a bygone age where a committee member sat at a table checking players in to a comp and issuing a scorecard at the time.

If clubs have a process/facility where they can pre-print scorecards in advance then fair enough, but for the vast majority of clubs players will just pick a blank scorecard off a pile by the clubhouse or pro-shop door after they've paid their entry fee.....its just not practical to expect "someone else" to write their name down on the card.

The current practice of "not swapping cards" does seem to have resulted in an increased number of what one might call "scorecard errors" as their is no visual verification of what is written on a card by a players marker.

 

[rulefan]

Given that a player is almost certainly goung to check his CH by looking at his HI on a chart, surely it is not beyond the dullest to simply copy it onto his card

 

[Swango1980]

Given that a player is almost certainly goung to check his CH by looking at his HI on a chart, surely it is not beyond the dullest to simply copy it onto his card

I don't think it is about intelligence. After all, before WHS all a player needed to do was look at their handicap and directly put that on the scorecard. No conversion or anything. Yet, the Rules of Golf still felt it necessary to insist on a DQ if that number was not there, or too high. And, I'm sure many have fallen foul of that rule over the years.

Also, the text on the charts is very small, easy to read across to the wrong row when looking up Course Handicap (I have seen 2 people do that so far)

 

[rulefan]

I don't think it is about intelligence. After all, before WHS all a player needed to do was look at their handicap and directly put that on the scorecard. No conversion or anything. Yet, the Rules of Golf still felt it necessary to insist on a DQ if that number was not there, or too high. And, I'm sure many have fallen foul of that rule over the years.

Also, the text on the charts is very small, easy to read across to the wrong row when looking up Course Handicap (I have seen 2 people do that so far)

2' x 3' boards are available to mount near the 1st tee

 

[nickjdavis]

Given that a player is almost certainly going to check his CH by looking at his HI on a chart, surely it is not beyond the dullest to simply copy it onto his card

You would think not, but after writing 9 separate educational publications about the WHS for my members including clear explicit directions on what to write on their card it is very difficult to break players own preconceptions as to what they need to do. I even had more than one player tell me that the slope index was only for visitors to convert their handicap when they came to play our course and home members would just use their handicap index when playing our course.

Given that the membership is 90% male it really comes as no surprise when you are honest and acknowledge how often a bloke actually bothers to read instructions for anything!!!

 

[SammmeBee]

Given that a player is almost certainly goung to check his CH by looking at his HI on a chart, surely it is not beyond the dullest to simply copy it onto his card

From experience on Sunday this is not was generally happened, so don’t assume....

 

[Swango1980]

You would think not, but after writing 9 separate educational publications about the WHS for my members including clear explicit directions on what to write on their card it is very difficult to break players own preconceptions as to what they need to do. I even had more than one player tell me that the slope index was only for visitors to convert their handicap when they came to play our course and home members would just use their handicap index when playing our course.

Given that the membership is 90% male it really comes as no surprise when you are honest and acknowledge how often a bloke actually bothers to read instructions for anything!!!

There does seem to be a bit of a "head buried in the sand" issue with some supporters of WHS. Just because it seems simple to them, they assume it will be simple for everyone. I've no doubt WHS has many positive aspects, and that many golfers will get more accustomed to it, but it is frustrating when some refuse to accept there will be few issues going forward. It will be interesting what misconceptions people from other clubs pick up. The one you mentioned is what I've heard from some at our club, where they think they play off their Index at their home course. Many also think the 95% playing handicap provides an unfair advantage to low handicappers, and it seems some still think every round must be submitted, even a social knock with their mates.

I've heard quite a few ask on multiple forums about how to register a round at an away course (course they are not a member of), with one person asking what would happen if they then didn't submit that score. Interesting question. To my knowledge, pre-registration must be done at the away course. But, the score must be submitted to the home course. So, if that score is NOT submitted, how will the home course even be aware of this, unless the away course makes an effort to contact them to say the round was pre-registered?

 

[nickjdavis]

There does seem to be a bit of a "head buried in the sand" issue with some supporters of WHS. Just because it seems simple to them, they assume it will be simple for everyone. I've no doubt WHS has many positive aspects, and that many golfers will get more accustomed to it, but it is frustrating when some refuse to accept there will be few issues going forward. It will be interesting what misconceptions people from other clubs pick up. The one you mentioned is what I've heard from some at our club, where they think they play off their Index at their home course. Many also think the 95% playing handicap provides an unfair advantage to low handicappers, and it seems some still think every round must be submitted, even a social knock with their mates.

I've heard quite a few ask on multiple forums about how to register a round at an away course (course they are not a member of), with one person asking what would happen if they then didn't submit that score. Interesting question. To my knowledge, pre-registration must be done at the away course. But, the score must be submitted to the home course. So, if that score is NOT submitted, how will the home course even be aware of this, unless the away course makes an effort to contact them to say the round was pre-registered?

Like I've intimated previously....there are rules written down that just do not mesh with what happens on a practical day to day basis at a club. I look forward to the day that I have to apologise to a golfer for not recording his score in a comp when there was no name on the returned card because the young girl behind the bar (filling in for the guy in the pro-shop who had just had to nip out for 10 minutes) who took his money, didn't write a card out for him.

We've still got low handicappers who refuse to play in the singles matchplay comp because they think the 100% allowance is unfair. They point out the number of times that a "mid-handicapper" has won the event as their evidence and just shut their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and go "nah nah nah nah" when you actually demonstrate that the proportion of winners is mathematically in line with the distribution of handicaps that enter. They then further get the hump when you point out that mid handicappers will always win if low handicappers don't bother entering!!....and these folk are genuinely intelligent blokes....but they just cant put their preconceptions aside and see the facts.

I guess that it is change....and folks are naturally resistant to change.

 

[Swango1980]

Like I've intimated previously....there are rules written down that just do not mesh with what happens on a practical day to day basis at a club. I look forward to the day that I have to apologise to a golfer for not recording his score in a comp when there was no name on the returned card because the young girl behind the bar (filling in for the guy in the pro-shop who had just had to nip out for 10 minutes) who took his money, didn't write a card out for him.

We've still got low handicappers who refuse to play in the singles matchplay comp because they think the 100% allowance is unfair. They point out the number of times that a "mid-handicapper" has won the event as their evidence and just shut their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and go "nah nah nah nah" when you actually demonstrate that the proportion of winners is mathematically in line with the distribution of handicaps that enter. They then further get the hump when you point out that mid handicappers will always win if low handicappers don't bother entering!!....and these folk are genuinely intelligent blokes....but they just cant put their preconceptions aside and see the facts.

I guess that it is change....and folks are naturally resistant to change.

A common argument from low handicappers. We have one at our club who is exactly the same (played off 5 CONGU). Always complained that low handicappers were at a disadvantage off the yellow tees, and it didn't matter to him when I tried to explain it was a measured course. In August this year he wasn't complaining too much, however, when he shot 2 under for 43 points and won the competition off yellows. I'll only emphasise with him if we are on Temporary Greens as well, as this shortens the course by 450 yards. This will play into the higher handicappers hands, as yardage has a bigger impact on them than lower handicappers.

I guess that is partly quite a scary thought. Yes, golfers get used to one way of doing things and change is hard to take. But, over time golfers will slowly get used to things. However, the CONGU system had been in place for a very very long time, and even then many golfers (including intelligent and experienced golfers) still had incorrect preconceptions and were confused with certain aspects. So, with WHS, it wold be foolish to think a day will come were everyone just "gets it" and there is zero confusion. WHS has more to it, more moving parts, so I suspect this will result in a higher level of confusion / misunderstandings even after the first few years.

 

[Old Skier]

While I was with the seniors yesterday 5 of the guys who came to Tavistock the day before were stood in a queue at the slope table waiting to see his CH and started moaning. When I pointed out he was happy using his app at the away club to get the info his response was he needed to check what is was at his home club. I chuckled and walked away.

 

[rulefan]

In 1983 CONGU introduced a new handicap scheme which drew on some aspects of the Australian system.
The revision of 1989 introduced the concept of the ‘Competition Scratch Score’ (CSS) to adjust the Standard Scratch Score (SSS) to take into account variations in playing conditions, better or worse, on any competition day.
The original LGU system was based on an average method rather than the incremental one of CONGU. In 1998 the Ladies’ Golf Union introduced a new handicapping system more similar to the system used by the men, the basis of which was that a player’s handicap should more closely reflect current playing ability and potential.
The Constitution of CONGU was amended in 2004 to include the four Ladies’ Home Associations and the LGU, reflecting the joint system.