WHS - Handicap Allowances Question

[IanM]

Once you have looked at the board at your club, how often would you need to check again?
But when you play a comp your ISV's PSI will tell you.

let me think...when it changes. That’s when. But I guess after a few years, the rules-fans will be able to recite the tables of every course in their Region

 

[graham warwick]

Every person I have every played with, in 15 years of golf (and a lot of matchplay, against a lot of different clubs in leagues) has always taken 90% the difference from the lowest handicapper. Mathematically, this is the same as taking 90% of all 4 handicaps and taking full difference from there (you are just doing the 90% calculation at a different point).

HOWEVER, the problem arises due to rounding. 5, 9, 14, 19 handicappers play a match (values in brackets are number of shots received):

Method 1 (commonly used in my experience): 90% the difference = 9 handicapper gets 3.6 (4), 14 handicapper gets 8.1 (8), 19 handicapper gets 12.6 (13)

Method 2 (as described): 90% of all = 5 handicapper plays off 5 (0) 9 handicapper plays off 8 (3), 14 handicapper gets 13 (8), 19 handicapper gets 17 (12)

So, due to rounding, both methods provide different results, with Method 1 giving an extra shot to 2 of the higher handicappers. I'm assuming Method 2 is the official method. How many have assumed Method 1?

We have been wrestling with this problem and believe that method 2 is what WHS advises even though method 1 is what most golfers are used to. This becomes even more relevant if you have players playing off different tees and you have to add difference in course ratings to one decimal point - see worked examples on page 41 in CONGU guidance to WHS rules document. This is going to cause a lot of issues, I don't think is well covered in all the WHS stuff and as far as I am aware will not be sorted out by ISVs

 

[graham warwick]

Does anyone know how you can add on e of your courses to the WHS platform? We have a missing 18 hole course which I think has prevented upload of some scores played off the forward (previously ladies ) tees in a multi -tee stableford. Also back 9 courses not set up. Can this only be done by WHS/dotgolf or can clubs do it themselves?

 

[Old Skier]

Does anyone know how you can add on e of your courses to the WHS platform? We have a missing 18 hole course which I think has prevented upload of some scores played off the forward (previously ladies ) tees in a multi -tee stableford. Also back 9 courses not set up. Can this only be done by WHS/dotgolf or can clubs do it themselves?

Not sure what you mean about “add on e”

If your slope certificate has the 9 hole front and back CR and slope for the tees you can add courses.

 

[Colin L]

Not sure what you mean about “add on e”

Try "add one".

 

[Old Skier]

Try "add one".

That’s why I dont do cross words.

 

[Old Skier]

Does anyone know how you can add on e of your courses to the WHS platform? We have a missing 18 hole course which I think has prevented upload of some scores played off the forward (previously ladies ) tees in a multi -tee stableford. Also back 9 courses not set up. Can this only be done by WHS/dotgolf or can clubs do it themselves?

Reference your missing course, had you added the CR and slope on your ISV before the uploaded as instructed

 

[graham warwick]

We believe we had given the slope and course ratings for the missing course to our ISV (this was done by our previous general manager in July) but it is not on the EG/dotgolf platform. I cannot work out whether we can upload the necessary info to add the course or it needs to be done centrally. Am waiting reply from technical support. If someone can list the steps to do it would be grateful
The nine hole courses for 10-18 were not relayed to ISV but would be useful to have for members perhaps wanting to do a supplementary score so ideally would like to upload these as well

 

[rulefan]

Does anyone know how you can add on e of your courses to the WHS platform? We have a missing 18 hole course which I think has prevented upload of some scores played off the forward (previously ladies ) tees in a multi -tee stableford. Also back 9 courses not set up. Can this only be done by WHS/dotgolf or can clubs do it themselves?

We had a similar issue. Eventually we contacted EG via whs.support@englandgolf.org and they set them up. Apparently they had missed our request made earlier in the year to set up nine hole courses.

 

[Old Skier]

We believe we had given the slope and course ratings for the missing course to our ISV (this was done by our previous general manager in July) but it is not on the EG/dotgolf platform. I cannot work out whether we can upload the necessary info to add the course or it needs to be done centrally. Am waiting reply from technical support. If someone can list the steps to do it would be grateful
The nine hole courses for 10-18 were not relayed to ISV but would be useful to have for members perhaps wanting to do a supplementary score so ideally would like to upload these as well

Adding to @rulefan if you want nine hole comps you will need to set up 9 holes course on your HC club system.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Does anyone know how you can add on e of your courses to the WHS platform? We have a missing 18 hole course which I think has prevented upload of some scores played off the forward (previously ladies ) tees in a multi -tee stableford. Also back 9 courses not set up. Can this only be done by WHS/dotgolf or can clubs do it themselves?

Simple answer is you can't. EG or rather their agents DotGolf - have to associate the courses with your club. We are missing 3 courses despite them being registered many weeks ago.

EG said this week they had fixed 60% of the outstanding issues so join the queue.

 

[Old Skier]

Simple answer is you can't. EG or rather their agents DotGolf - have to associate the courses with your club. We are missing 3 courses despite them being registered many weeks ago.

EG said this week they had fixed 60% of the outstanding issues so join the queue.

Are you saying that if I now add courses to my ISV they won’t be recognised on the dashboard and comps won’t be uploaded.

 

[rulefan]

Are you saying that if I now add courses to my ISV they won’t be recognised on the dashboard and comps won’t be uploaded.

That's what it seems to be.

 

[Old Skier]

That's what it seems to be.

I best contact WFS then as I haven’t had time to do the 9 hole courses yet

 

[graham warwick]

Thanks for helpful replies. May I ask a further question re plus handicappers?
We have had a lot of debate about plus handicappers (we have member off +4.6). It seems they are potentially disadvantaged. In appendix C of rules of handicapping it states
'When applying a handicap allowance, any reduction will always result in a Playing Handicap closer to zero, including for players with a plus Handicap Index'.
But it does not seem logical as by applying the handicap allowance the plus handicapper then gives fewer shots back to the course (i.e. it gets easier) whereas all the other players lose shots so it gets harder!
This is the same issue with slope rating tables where for a course with slope of >113 a plus player's handicap gets more plus (i.e. more difficult for them) when course handicap is calculated but a minus handicapper gets more minus (i.e. gets more shots)
Are we missing something or is this correct interpretation?

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks for helpful replies. May I ask a further question re plus handicappers?
We have had a lot of debate about plus handicappers (we have member off +4.6). It seems they are potentially disadvantaged. In appendix C of rules of handicapping it states
'When applying a handicap allowance, any reduction will always result in a Playing Handicap closer to zero, including for players with a plus Handicap Index'.
But it does not seem logical as by applying the handicap allowance the plus handicapper then gives fewer shots back to the course (i.e. it gets easier) whereas all the other players lose shots so it gets harder!
This is the same issue with slope rating tables where for a course with slope of >113 a plus player's handicap gets more plus (i.e. more difficult for them) when course handicap is calculated but a minus handicapper gets more minus (i.e. gets more shots)
Are we missing something or is this correct interpretation?

This is correct, and the way the system is meant to work. Don't think of Slope as giving or taking shots away from a player based on the absolute difficulty of the course. The purpose of the Slope is to reduce or increase the difference in shots between low and high handicappers. It is the relative difference.

So, for a course with a high slope, high handicappers will get more shots. Plus handicappers move further away from zero (i.e. get a bigger disadvantage against the course whilst the high handicappers get a bigger advantage against the course). In other words, the gap between the plus handicapper and the high handicapper gets greater as their handicaps are stretched apart. Vice versa, when the Slope is low, the high handicappers get less shots, but the plus handicappers gets a handicap closer to zero, so their handicaps are being pushed closer together.

 

[graham warwick]

Thank you. So the same argument applies when applying a handicap allowance i.e. it reduces the gap between a plus handicapper and a high handicapper?

 

[Swango1980]

Yeah, you mean such as 95%?

Let's say the handicap allowance was 50% (just to make this example even clearer), the purpose is to bring high and low handicappers closer together, otherwise the higher handicappers would be considered to have an unfair advantage.

So, Player A has a course handicap of 4, player B a course handicap of +4. Difference of 8 shots. If the allowance was 50%, A becomes 2, B becomes +2, and the difference between them thus falls to 4 shots as expected.

 

[rulefan]

This is the same issue with slope rating tables where for a course with slope of >113 a plus player's handicap gets more plus (i.e. more difficult for them) when course handicap is calculated but a minus handicapper gets more minus (i.e. gets more shots)
Are we missing something or is this correct interpretation?

That's what the formula says. CH = HI x (SR/113)
If I put an Index of -8 and a slope of 150 into the R&A Handicap Calculator it shows -11

NB. Handicap Allowances are not the same.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Are you saying that if I now add courses to my ISV they won’t be recognised on the dashboard and comps won’t be uploaded.

That's exactly what I am saying.