WHS General Play and Competition Play

[CarterR]

The bit in bold. In my experience this is only the case for board comps.

My current and previous clubs set the course up pretty much the same every day and only put the tees right back and pins in their hardest positions for things like the club championships.

I think it’s already been said, and I have said many times. The only difference between a general play round and a competition round is in someone’s head.

Indeed. It's in people's heads.

I just wondered if that was reflected in scores. If so, and if understood, maybe we can learn.

That's what I was think of about bandits. Maybe some people (like real life bandits) switch on their concentration more when prizes are at stake.

 

[nickjdavis]

Thoughts please.

In this world of data, openness, compliance, and fairness, I would be happy if my handicap was published along with supporting data.

Specifically I would like to see:

1/ WHS handicap
2/ Handicap based on General Play scores only
3/ Handicap based on prize competition scores only

If the system works there should be no differences.

Looking at the Comp Scores v General Play scores report on the WHS platform...

We had 394 in total golfers who either submitted a GP score and/or a comp score. Of these 394 golfers, 152 only submitted GP scores, 95 only submitted comp scores, leaving 147 who submitted scores of each type.

Across all golfers, irrespective of what type of score they submitted, the average Score Differential was 23.2 for Competition Play and 23.1 for General Play. The average Handicap Index of ALL golfers was 19.3.

If we only considering the proportion of golfers who submitted at least 30% of both types of score (so 30% GP & 70% comp; 50/50 or 70/30 and any combination in between....just so there is a reasonable data set of each type for comparison)...

Only 42 golfers fell into this range...average differentials were 22.0 for comp scores and 21.1 for GP scores.....if a player were to submit 20 scores of these numbers then it would result in a competition index of 20.05 and a GP index of 20.04 (yes I know that index is only measured to 1d.p. but I wanted to highlight where the difference was in case you thought it was a typo!!)

I am here making the assumption that all comp scores are off the white tees (Slope 124)and all GP scores are off the yellow tees (Slope 119)....whilst this will largely be true there are cases where a small number of comps are played off the yellows and likewise a small percentage of GP rounds played off the whites....in order to really nail this down I would need access to the entire set of raw data for all rounds and run my own bespoke reports in a database application, rather than rely on the standard reports provided by the WHS system.

Now...i'm not presenting this data and claiming that the system works....in the grand scheme of things, this is still only a pretty limited set of data, and when looking at a single individual you will pretty much certainly see a difference due to an even more limited set of data. But across the board the data that i see is pretty much evidence that the system is "good enough" at ensuring that GP and Comp scores are comparable....all other things being equal.

 

[Bamberdele2.0]

Only comp socres on my record.

Too many dodgy GP round scores go in from other people at my club so I tend to stay away.

I’ve seen people bang in 4 x GP rounds in a two days, 2 cards a day for the front 9 and back 9.

One way of knocking off a green.

Comical

 

[wjemather]

Only comp socres on my record.

Too many dodgy GP round scores go in from other people at my club so I tend to stay away.

I’ve seen people bang in 4 x GP rounds in a two days, 2 cards a day for the front 9 and back 9.

One way of knocking off a green.

Comical

I assume you have brought this to the attention of your handicap committee so that they can educate these golfers.

 

[LincolnShep]

Only comp socres on my record.

Too many dodgy GP round scores go in from other people at my club so I tend to stay away.

I’ve seen people bang in 4 x GP rounds in a two days, 2 cards a day for the front 9 and back 9.

One way of knocking off a green.

Comical

I'm confused by the reasoning, so maybe I'm not understanding. You don't enter honest GP rounds because you believe other people enter dishonest GP rounds? Is that right, or am I missing something?

 

[Bamberdele2.0]

I'm confused by the reasoning, so maybe I'm not understanding. You don't enter honest GP rounds because you believe other people enter dishonest GP rounds? Is that right, or am I missing something?

If I’m honest, I don’t really believe half of peoples general play rounds. That’s only because GP rounds have been given such a bad rep by so many it’s almost as if I’m tarring everyone with the same brush.

 

[LincolnShep]

If I’m honest, I don’t really believe half of peoples general play rounds. That’s only because GP rounds have been given such a bad rep by so many it’s almost as if I’m tarring everyone with the same brush.

So, do you choose not to enter GP rounds because you're worried that other people might think you're fiddling?

 

[Bamberdele2.0]

So, do you choose not to enter GP rounds because you're worried that other people might think you're fiddling?

I average 2/3 comps a month buddy.

There is no reason for me to bang in supplementary rounds.

 

[Orikoru]

I don't put many general play rounds in at all. Mostly it's because I want the freedom to stop taking it seriously if I'm playing crap. Generally if the round is a write-off I'll be taking some gimmes, taking drops in more favourable spots etc, just trying to enjoy the rest of the round before I head in. If I'm putting cards in every time then half my rounds would have a bunch of NRs on the card in that case. Pointless.

 

[JonnyGutteridge]

probably the wrong place to post this but don’t want to start a new thread

We have a new system for comps where men and ladies compete together, men have the option of whites or yellows and ladies have the option of reds or orange tees.

This means, for some reason, men playing off the whites get an extra 2 shots.

Example for me;
index is 4.2
I get 5 shots based on the chart
So I get 7 shots with the extra 2 adjustment shots.

Scoring is therefore insanely high (42 pts wins on average)

Big bug bear for me… I can’t see why anyone would choose to play the yellow tees?
The whites were moved up to the yellow plates on the majority of holes. You basically choose whites, play off yellows and get an extra 2 shots.

Anyone else’s club doing this? I don’t think it can really work. I don’t trust the ratings enough and I don’t see how you can have men and ladies competing against each other playing off up to 4 different sets of tees.

 

[Bdill93]

probably the wrong place to post this but don’t want to start a new thread

We have a new system for comps where men and ladies compete together, men have the option of whites or yellows and ladies have the option of reds or orange tees.

This means, for some reason, men playing off the whites get an extra 2 shots.

Example for me;
index is 4.2
I get 5 shots based on the chart
So I get 7 shots with the extra 2 adjustment shots.

Scoring is therefore insanely high (42 pts wins on average)

Big bug bear for me… I can’t see why anyone would choose to play the yellow tees?
The whites were moved up to the yellow plates on the majority of holes. You basically choose whites, play off yellows and get an extra 2 shots.

Anyone else’s club doing this? I don’t think it can really work. I don’t trust the ratings enough and I don’t see how you can have men and ladies competing against each other playing off up to 4 different sets of tees.

We do mens and ladies together but it see's the ladies gain shots not the men.

Our winning score are always high 41+ as we have a short and relatively easy course with a par 69.

 

[wjemather]

probably the wrong place to post this but don’t want to start a new thread

We have a new system for comps where men and ladies compete together, men have the option of whites or yellows and ladies have the option of reds or orange tees.

This means, for some reason, men playing off the whites get an extra 2 shots.

Example for me;
index is 4.2
I get 5 shots based on the chart
So I get 7 shots with the extra 2 adjustment shots.

Scoring is therefore insanely high (42 pts wins on average)

Big bug bear for me… I can’t see why anyone would choose to play the yellow tees?
The whites were moved up to the yellow plates on the majority of holes. You basically choose whites, play off yellows and get an extra 2 shots.

Anyone else’s club doing this? I don’t think it can really work. I don’t trust the ratings enough and I don’t see how you can have men and ladies competing against each other playing off up to 4 different sets of tees.

To be acceptable for handicapping, courses must be setup within the tolerances of the rating system. This means daily tee markers placed within 10 yards of the permanent distance markers, total length variance within 100 yards, and [edit: as far as possible] course setup as "normal" (e.g. rough height, green speed, hole locations, etc.).

From what you are saying about the white tees being moved forward, it sounds like they are highly unlikely to be within tolerance, and so players will be getting an unfair advantage by playing from those tees.

I am aware that many courses have similar practices, but it is simply not acceptable from a handicapping perspective.

 

[BiMGuy]

I don't put many general play rounds in at all. Mostly it's because I want the freedom to stop taking it seriously if I'm playing crap. Generally if the round is a write-off I'll be taking some gimmes, taking drops in more favourable spots etc, just trying to enjoy the rest of the round before I head in. If I'm putting cards in every time then half my rounds would have a bunch of NRs on the card in that case. Pointless.

And I’m the opposite because I want to keep battling. Which I do anyway, but knowing my score is counting towards something helps.

As I’ve said before. I don’t play any differently whether in a comp or otherwise.

 

[YandaB]

To be acceptable for handicapping, courses must be setup within the tolerances of the rating system. This means daily tee markers placed within 10 yards of the permanent distance markers, total length variance within 100 yards, and course setup as "normal" (e.g. rough height, green speed, hole locations, etc.).

From what you are saying about the white tees being moved forward, it sounds like they are highly unlikely to be within tolerance, and so players will be getting an unfair advantage by playing from those tees.

I am aware that many courses have similar practices, but it is simply not acceptable from a handicapping perspective.

I beleive that rules still say "should" and not "must" for both the individual tees and the overall course tolerances. It does feel odd that as distance is king in the course and slope ratings that this is not a "must".

 

[LincolnShep]

I average 2/3 comps a month buddy.

There is no reason for me to bang in supplementary rounds.

OK, got it. I thought you were giving a reason earlier. Hence my confusion. If there's no reason, there's no reason!

 

[wjemather]

I beleive that rules still say "should" and not "must" for both the individual tees and the overall course tolerances. It does feel odd that as distance is king in the course and slope ratings that this is not a "must".

Real world application necessitates "should" rather than "must". A few yards excess is trivial, especially when the rules use a 1:1 yards to metres conversion ratio.

 

[JonnyGutteridge]

To be acceptable for handicapping, courses must be setup within the tolerances of the rating system. This means daily tee markers placed within 10 yards of the permanent distance markers, total length variance within 100 yards, and course setup as "normal" (e.g. rough height, green speed, hole locations, etc.).

From what you are saying about the white tees being moved forward, it sounds like they are highly unlikely to be within tolerance, and so players will be getting an unfair advantage by playing from those tees.

I am aware that many courses have similar practices, but it is simply not acceptable from a handicapping perspective.

Defo not within tolerance, some holes as much as 40 yards further forwards and probably on 12+ holes we played tees more than 10 yards ahead of the tombstones.

That is my primary issue with general play cards too - no course is EVER setup for general play as it is for a comp, certainly not within 10 yards on every hole either.

Comps mean 3 things; tees at the tomb stones, pins much closer to the edges, greens cut and rolled.

General play; forward tees, easier and more familiar pins, greens furry.

But I’m massively dismissive of general play cards due to how I’ve seen them used and abused since introduction of WHS

 

[BiMGuy]

Defo not within tolerance, some holes as much as 40 yards further forwards and probably on 12+ holes we played tees more than 10 yards ahead of the tombstones.

That is my primary issue with general play cards too - no course is EVER setup for general play as it is for a comp, certainly not within 10 yards on every hole either.

Comps mean 3 things; tees at the tomb stones, pins much closer to the edges, greens cut and rolled.

General play; forward tees, easier and more familiar pins, greens furry.

But I’m massively dismissive of general play cards due to how I’ve seen them used and abused since introduction of WHS

This is not the case everywhere. Certainly not my current and previous clubs.

Other than board comps, the course is set up the same every day.

 

[D-S]

To be acceptable for handicapping, courses must be setup within the tolerances of the rating system. This means daily tee markers placed within 10 yards of the permanent distance markers, total length variance within 100 yards, and course setup as "normal" (e.g. rough height, green speed, hole locations, etc.).

From what you are saying about the white tees being moved forward, it sounds like they are highly unlikely to be within tolerance, and so players will be getting an unfair advantage by playing from those tees.

I am aware that many courses have similar practices, but it is simply not acceptable from a handicapping perspective.

I don’t think many courses this winter will have the same green speeds as when they were rated in summer condition - many courses have had little opportunity to get machines onto greens even though the mildish weather has allowed some growth - greens are noticeably slower and softer so run completely differently.
Traditionally a lot of courses cut down long fescue rough in autumn and general rough height is considerably lower. Course set up is certainly not the same for these parameters in winter than in summer when rated.
For the past three months there has been little or no run on many many courses and with the prevailing weather meaning the ball is not travelling as much in the air, courses are playing 10-20% longer than in summer. If this were factored into current ratings they would be significantly higher.

 

[rulefan]

That is my primary issue with general play cards too - no course is EVER setup for general play as it is for a comp, certainly not within 10 yards on every hole either.

Comps mean 3 things; tees at the tomb stones, pins much closer to the edges, greens cut and rolled.

General play; forward tees, easier and more familiar pins, greens furry.

But I’m massively dismissive of general play cards due to how I’ve seen them used and abused since introduction of WHS

Except in exceptional weather conditions or course renovation etc, at my course all tees are always within 10 yards of the relevant permanent markers, the total length is always within the standard tolerance. holes are varied, greens are cut and rolled daily.