WHS Handicap Index - Finally Revealed

[Swango1980]

That has logic to it but I was assured twice by EG that the LI would be the final CONGU Handicap on 1/11/20. So we will have to see if I was told a load a rubbish or they will substitute that in as a starting figure.

Personally, I would find that very unusual. As said, the CONGU handicap is not really related to Handicap Index. A handicap Index is "de-sloped", and given most courses have a slope over 113, and well over this, then their Index will be lower than their average gross differential (i think I have the terminology right). So, if my 8 best scores were all 10 over Course Rating, then that would be an average of 10.0, but this is not my index (but it would be my course handicap, assuming all rounds on same tees and course). My index would be 8.5 based on a Slope of 133. It was appearing that the vast majority of golfers will have a lower Index than their CONGU handicap, but their Course handicaps will be more comparable to CONGU.

So, if that seems to be the general pattern, it would be strange to use the CONGU handicap as the low value. Given that they have a whole set of scores from Jan 2018, I wonder why they cannot just use the scores within the last year to set the low handicap index, which would be consistent to how it will be done going forward. This appears to be what the website is showing, perhaps England Golf had a change of heart, or the site isn't fully accurate yet?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I’m guessing this isn’t active within IG yet

 

[MendieGK]

At the risk of groans all round, it's the best 8 of your last 20 (6 of 17 for me), averaged out somehow in relation to SSS/CSS???

We’ll kind of. If using CSS I should be .3 instead I come up as 1.3

 

[Swango1980]

At the risk of groans all round, it's the best 8 of your last 20 (6 of 17 for me), averaged out somehow in relation to SSS/CSS???

This doesn't seem to be the case. All adjusted gross scores appear to use the Course Rating (not SSS or CSS) and all PCC values are zero. This is how they'd be used when it is live. However, I'm not sure if they have used any fiddle factors in background to account for CSS when putting the scores in up to now.

 

[Swango1980]

This doesn't seem to be the case. All adjusted gross scores appear to use the Course Rating (not SSS or CSS) and all PCC values are zero. This is how they'd be used when it is live. However, I'm not sure if they have used any fiddle factors in background to account for CSS when putting the scores in up to now.

I will add, I calculated Handicap Index values previous to getting access to this website, and I used CSS. I do seem to be getting different results to the England Golf Calcs, as MendieGK also seems to be finding. So, I suspect CSS has not been used, or even SSS. Instead, they may well just be using CR as it stands.

 

[Swango1980]

What's PCC?
I know the course rating.

It is the Playing Conditions Calculation. It effectively does what CSS does now (but worked out differently).

 

[harpo_72]

And the site is down ... just went through it all, what a statistical phaff...think I will play off scratch and accept I am rubbish instead of trying to hide behind lists of numbers, fudge factors and excuses ... goddam America is killing our culture

 

[Mozza14]

Personally, I would find that very unusual. As said, the CONGU handicap is not really related to Handicap Index. A handicap Index is "de-sloped", and given most courses have a slope over 113, and well over this, then their Index will be lower than their average gross differential (i think I have the terminology right). So, if my 8 best scores were all 10 over Course Rating, then that would be an average of 10.0, but this is not my index (but it would be my course handicap, assuming all rounds on same tees and course). My index would be 8.5 based on a Slope of 133. It was appearing that the vast majority of golfers will have a lower Index than their CONGU handicap, but their Course handicaps will be more comparable to CONGU.

So, if that seems to be the general pattern, it would be strange to use the CONGU handicap as the low value. Given that they have a whole set of scores from Jan 2018, I wonder why they cannot just use the scores within the last year to set the low handicap index, which would be consistent to how it will be done going forward. This appears to be what the website is showing, perhaps England Golf had a change of heart, or the site isn't fully accurate yet?

I agree with all the above in logic. I personally feel, however, that basing a Low Index at this starting point on data from almost three years ago will establish false and restrictive Low Indexes. That would often be in conflict with the overall intention of creating handicaps in line with current performance. I started a separate thread on this previously. I think many players declining in age and standard will be penalised and constrained by this capping feature if it kicks in immediately. Therefore, I saw the transfer of the CONGU figure as allowing some leeway. I guess we will have to wait and see for this one on 2/11/20.If I was advised correctly, then of course the very next day, any new HI could potentially change the Low Index but that would only apply after improvement in the players record.

 

[Swango1980]

I agree with all the above in logic. I personally feel, however, that basing a Low Index at this starting point on data from almost three years ago will establish false and restrictive Low Indexes. That would often be in conflict with the overall intention of creating handicaps in line with current performance. I started a separate thread on this previously. I think many players declining in age and standard will be penalised and constrained by this capping feature if it kicks in immediately. Therefore, I saw the transfer of the CONGU figure as allowing some leeway. I guess we will have to wait and see for this one on 2/11/20.

In terms of the bit I highlighted, this would be relevant at any point, whether it be 2nd November 2020, or the year 2025 when we are in full flow. In other words, as soon as a low limit is set, you can then always argue this case in bold. I'm not saying I disagree with your point, but it is important to have such a feature, otherwise you could have someone playing off scratch one day, then over a few months play 20 rounds (or even less) of really bad golf, then have a handicap of 30 (extreme example, but trying to highlight how easy it would be for a massive increase if anything before your last 20 rounds was entirely forgotten).

I think in your case, after 20 rounds of golf, a handicap can still go up by up to 5 shots (and that would be around 6 shots in terms of course handicap). I'd imagine that should usually be more than enough to account for declining ability. Of course, handicap committees can still intervene if they need to

 

[clubchamp98]

Well that’s explained everything in layman’s terms.
Still none the wiser.
Our board is up on the wall.
Watched people scratching their heads and just shrugging.

 

[Mozza14]

In terms of the bit I highlighted, this would be relevant at any point, whether it be 2nd November 2020, or the year 2025 when we are in full flow. In other words, as soon as a low limit is set, you can then always argue this case in bold. I'm not saying I disagree with your point, but it is important to have such a feature, otherwise you could have someone playing off scratch one day, then over a few months play 20 rounds (or even less) of really bad golf, then have a handicap of 30 (extreme example, but trying to highlight how easy it would be for a massive increase if anything before your last 20 rounds was entirely forgotten).

I think in your case, after 20 rounds of golf, a handicap can still go up by up to 5 shots (and that would be around 6 shots in terms of course handicap). I'd imagine that should usually be more than enough to account for declining ability. Of course, handicap committees can still intervene if they need to

I think the capping process is fine and I agree with it for the future. I just think it is flawed at the outset of this conversion when such out of data is used in the initial calculation.

 

[Swango1980]

I think the capping process is fine and I agree with it for the future. I just think it is flawed at the outset of this conversion when such out of data is used in the initial calculation.

But, is it not just the same amount of information that will be going into it at any time effectively. Moving forward, it won't suddenly only look back 1 year and ignore all scores before (as it needs the scores before to check low index). So, I can't see the difference between being happy with a low index in 3 years time, but not happy with it now, given it is being used in the same way

 

[IanG]

Just over two weeks to go....

Indicative handicap indexes not published, home course not rated, players none the wiser. Deep Joy.

I find the radio silence from Scottish Golf on this ominous. Every time I ask our GM about it she talks of software issues between IG and ScottishGolf.

Mortonhall's 2013 ratings are here - do you expect your recent course improvements will change the ratings much ?

https://ncrdb.usga.org/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=17070

 

[Mozza14]

But, is it not just the same amount of information that will be going into it at any time effectively. Moving forward, it won't suddenly only look back 1 year and ignore all scores before (as it needs the scores before to check low index). So, I can't see the difference between being happy with a low index in 3 years time, but not happy with it now, given it is being used in the same way

For those people who submit regular acceptable scores they will have both a realistic and evolving HI. At the same time the rolling LI will only look back at Indexes over 365 days. Previously, most acceptable scores will have come from Competitions and for many 20 scores will potentially go back to 1/1/18 and penalise those with limited history. Sensible golfers will have upped their acceptable scores to remove old data but their 365 day look back will still hold Low Indexes going a long way back and over many rounds of golf.

In the other thread, I explained the effect on my own record and I think for higher handicappers the drag effect may be even greater.

 

[happyhacker]

Just over two weeks to go....

Indicative handicap indexes not published, home course not rated, players none the wiser. Deep Joy.

Glad we aren't the only Scottish club with radio silence. I'm sure it will all work out fine ?

 

[Swango1980]

For those people who submit regular acceptable scores they will have both a realistic and evolving HI. At the same time the rolling LI will only look back at Indexes over 365 days. Previously, most acceptable scores will have come from Competitions and for many 20 scores will potentially go back to 1/1/18 and penalise those with limited history. Sensible golfers will have upped their acceptable scores to remove old data but their 365 day look back will still hold Low Indexes going a long way back and over many rounds of golf.

In the other thread, I explained the effect on my own record and I think for higher handicappers the drag effect may be even greater.

It isn't that simply. Yes, the low limit looks back 365 days ago. However, to get that low limit, scores older than 365 days would have been used.

It is my understanding, the low limit only applies once a golfer has submitted 20 scores, although would need to double check the text.

However, if golfers had only submitted 20 scores between the year 2022 and 2025, then their handicap index may not be the most up to date. Just the same as if they have only entered 20 scores between Jan 2018 and now. So, I think you'd still generally have the same problem at any point, if golfers rarely submit scores

 

[Mozza14]

It isn't that simply. Yes, the low limit looks back 365 days ago. However, to get that low limit, scores older than 365 days would have been used.

It is my understanding, the low limit only applies once a golfer has submitted 20 scores, although would need to double check the text.

However, if golfers had only submitted 20 scores between the year 2022 and 2025, then their handicap index may not be the most up to date. Just the same as if they have only entered 20 scores between Jan 2018 and now. So, I think you'd still generally have the same problem at any point, if golfers rarely submit scores

Yes but that would be the golfers own problem if they didn't submit many scores. They are also unlikely to be ones testing the soft and hard cap limits. I am talking about those who want to use the system now it is here and like myself have input supplementary scores because my game has deteriorated but I may be limited by a LI of 3.4 which will be with me until July 2021 when my current index is more like 6.0 already. I can assure you that 6.0 is justified with potential upside. A lot of my data in the 3.4 LI is from 2018. All this before we have even started. I can see, my point is not being accepted so I will leave it on the record but no further comment until we see what happens when it goes live.

It was in response to these concerns that England Golf WHS team told me that the starting LI would be the CONGU Handicap. The examples posted so far don't indicate that, so they may well have given me guff.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes but that would be the golfers own problem if they didn't submit many scores. They are also unlikely to be ones testing the soft and hard cap limits. I am talking about those who want to use the system now it is here and like myself have input supplementary scores because my game has deteriorated but I may be limited by a LI of 3.4 which will be with me until July 2021 when my current index is more like 6.0 already. I can assure you that 6.0 is justified with potential upside. A lot of my data in the 3.4 LI is from 2018. All this before we have even started. I can see, my point is not being accepted so I will leave it on the record but no further comment until we see what happens when it goes live.

It was in response to these concerns that England Golf WHS team told me that the starting LI would be the CONGU Handicap. The examples posted so far don't indicate that, so they may well have given me guff.

But, if your low index is 3.4, and you think your current ability is 6.0, then there should not be an issue. Even if your initial index works out lower than 6.0, as you submit scores it should quickly start approaching 6.0, if that is your limit. That doesn't even trigger the soft cap, lst alone the hard cap.

 

[rulefan]

I’ve been told mine now too, very confused as there seems to have been no PCC calculated for any of the rounds.... in a lot of my best scores the CSS went up a lot! So basically I’ve been screwed for playing wel in bad conditions

A PCC cannot show because there would be no way to calculate one from CONGU data. However the CSS would have been used in the calculation instead of the Course Rating.
So the Score Differential is
(113/Slope) * (Adj Gross - CSS) rather than
(113/Slope) * (Adj Gross - CR - PCC)

 

[rulefan]

Personally, I would find that very unusual. As said, the CONGU handicap is not really related to Handicap Index. A handicap Index is "de-sloped", and given most courses have a slope over 113, and well over this, then their Index will be lower than their average gross differential (i think I have the terminology right). So, if my 8 best scores were all 10 over Course Rating, then that would be an average of 10.0, but this is not my index (but it would be my course handicap, assuming all rounds on same tees and course). My index would be 8.5 based on a Slope of 133. It was appearing that the vast majority of golfers will have a lower Index than their CONGU handicap, but their Course handicaps will be more comparable to CONGU.

That's how it works

PS I haven't worked my way through the whole thread yet so may have duplicated other answers