WHS Introduction Flyer

[mikejohnchapman]

We renew our subscriptions in March and I wanted to include a 1 page flyer with the letters to give an overview of the WHS as the start of the education process.

Before generating something I wondered if anyone else had produced a simple members overview I could steal with pride!

 

[rulefan]

This (copied from National Club Golfer) is a reasonable taster

World Handicap System key features

• WHS will use the USGA course and slope rating system – your handicap will change depending on the difficulty of the course and the competition conditions
• A minimum of 54 holes will be required to gain a handicap but that can come from any combination of 9 or 18-hole scores
• Handicaps will be calculated using the best eight of the last 20 scores. The 0.1 increase will disappear
• Both competitive and recreational rounds Supplementary Scores will be able to count for handicap
• CSS will be replaced by a new system known as the abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment

 

[rulefan]

The following, which is heavily edited from the initial presentation to club handicap administrators, may be helpful.

Course Rating represents the score a scratch player should achieve under normal course and weather conditions.
Course Rating assess 2 types of challenge, the effective playing length of the course and the obstacles that a player will encounter. (The same as current SSS)
Whilst calculated to one decimal place, a Course Rating of 71.8 would equate to a scratch golfer’s expected score of 72
The same principle is applied for the bogey golfer however their expected score would be about 95 (say).

A Scratch Golfer will have a 0.0 Handicap Index

A Bogey Golfer will have a Handicap Index of between 20 & 24.

To recap – the Course Rating is the score that a scratch golfer is expected to score; the Bogey Rating is the score a bogey player is expected to score.

**************************************************************************************************************************

This is where Slope Rating comes in.

**************************************************************************************************************************
Slope Rating represents the difference between the two – i.e. the relative difficulty (playing from a specific set of tees on a golf course) for the Bogey player compared to the Scratch player. And NOT comparing Course A with Course B, as some golfers think.

The Slope Rating is, therefore, a key component in the calculation of the number of strokes each player receives to play a particular golf course.

The difference between the Scratch and Bogey Ratings multiplied by a constant factor calculates the Slope Rating.
Factors: Men – 5.381 Women – 4.24
Slope rating can range from 55 as the lowest to 155 as the highest with the standard (not average) difficulty being 113.

A player's Course Handicap is calculated using the following formula:
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating / 113)

 

[Old Skier]

We supplied a link and gave the following as well https://www.englandgolf.org/handicaps-rules/whs-2020/

 

[3offTheTee]

If I have The terminology incorrect apologies:

if I am playing in a Stroke play Competition do I receive 95 % of my Course Handicap? If so why is this please?

 

[Old Skier]

If I have The terminology incorrect apologies:

if I am playing in a Stroke play Competition do I receive 95 % of my Course Handicap? If so why is this please?

The one question that raised some anger and discussion at the SW WHS Workshop. Nobody will give a sensible answer after CONGU has spent that last 5 years justifying the use of full, 9/10 etc

 

[mikejohnchapman]

The one question that raised some anger and discussion at the SW WHS Workshop. Nobody will give a sensible answer after CONGU has spent that last 5 years justifying the use of full, 9/10 etc

I think it's a nod to single figure handicapers as with the new playing handicaps will increase the differential even further. In effect if you are off single figures you will get your full handicap but others will not.

They quote fairness and equity a lot!

Personally think it adds a level of complexity which isn't welcome.

 

[duncan mackie]

The one question that raised some anger and discussion at the SW WHS Workshop. Nobody will give a sensible answer after CONGU has spent that last 5 years justifying the use of full, 9/10 etc

It will run and run I am afraid.
Classic case of what you didn't see you didn't query; and both the last iteration of the CONGU algorithm and the USGA calls had what was either specifically called a reward for excellence (USGA) or a general acceptance that the lower the handicap the stronger is was (CONGU steady state - improvers, or those fading like myself, aren't steady state).
Both these elements have been taken out of the calculation to arrive at handicap index (which is why you will probably see a disproportionate increase in higher handicaps when transitioned next year) and that will then be adjusted back again in some allowances....put another way it's all going to be pretty much the same for stroke play comp but arrived at in different ways!

Then again conspiracy theories rule ?

 

[rulefan]

Duncan has it right. The other major handicap systems had a 'bonus for excellence' adjustment built in to the handicap calculation. 96% in North America and 93% in Australia.
To quote the USGA
Bonus for Excellence is the incentive for players to improve their golf games that is built into the USGA Handicap System. It is the term used to describe the small percentage below perfect equity that is used to calculate a Handicap Index (96 percent). As a Handicap Index improves (gets lower), the player has a slightly better chance of placing high or winning a handicap event.
This has now been moved to the allowance for individual stroke play, so that it will not worsen the current imbalance in matchplay where the allowance is still 100%

 

[rulefan]

the last iteration of the CONGU algorithm ... had ... a general acceptance that the lower the handicap the stronger is was (CONGU steady state - improvers, or those fading like myself, aren't steady state).

Duncan
I have looked for this before. How/where is it described/expressed in the CONGU manual ?

 

[duncan mackie]

Duncan
I have looked for this before. How/where is it described/expressed in the CONGU manual ?

It isnt (for CONGU) it's a function of the way a handicap is calculated.

In it's simplest terms if cat 4 were calculated at 0.1 to 0.1 they would be stronger (higher).
Whilst this variation is a function of the normal distribution curve for each cat, and the generation of a steady state handicap ie without it an 18 handicap, scoring anticipated 18 handicap scores, would gradually increase in handicap; it's product is to deliver stronger lower handicaps.
This only real statement of acceptance to this is in the stated matchplay bias (to lower handicaps) which applies even below the levels where NDB handicapping might factor. From memory around 5% has been referenced from time to time.

My point is that
1.previously there were inherent elements that went into the calculation of a handicap - these have been removed and replaced by a single routine that applies across all handicap levels (You could duplicate it by varying the sample set being averaged at different levels (categories))
2. this can be seen in the anticipated transition impact - that higher handicaps are likely to see an increase when their initial WHS handicap index is calculated.

If it was believed that the previous handicaps were correct for singles stroke play competition then an allowance adjustment becomes necessary to maintain that (inherent) status quo.

 

[rulefan]

Thanks Duncan
I hadn't really thought through the 'bfe' effect of the CONGU/EGA ratchet.

I seem to remember it was suggested that the individual matchplay allowance should be 120% to produce parity.

 

[Crow]

Duncan has it right. The other major handicap systems had a 'bonus for excellence' adjustment built in to the handicap calculation. 96% in North America and 93% in Australia.
To quote the USGA
Bonus for Excellence is the incentive for players to improve their golf games that is built into the USGA Handicap System. It is the term used to describe the small percentage below perfect equity that is used to calculate a Handicap Index (96 percent). As a Handicap Index improves (gets lower), the player has a slightly better chance of placing high or winning a handicap event.
This has now been moved to the allowance for individual stroke play, so that it will not worsen the current imbalance in matchplay where the allowance is still 100%

I don't get this.
If they have a better chance of a handicap cut then this will soon level out over the course of a year and they'll find their natural "bonus for excellence" handicap and any built-in advantage will be gone.

 

[IanM]

The summaries at the top are really helpful. Thanks..... I would still precis further, but thats how to get the message over.

Bullet points. No waffle. It's pretty easy after that!

....there are couple of terms used that are not explained (unless I missed it)

Handicap index - is that the average of the "8 from 20?"

I guess, In practice, the course index is sorted out when you key your gross numbers into the computer? In And if you are playing matchplay, keep a calculator in your golf bag?

The very existence "constant factor" in the calculation demonstrates the wrong sort of people developed this!

 

[rulefan]

I don't get this.
If they have a better chance of a handicap cut then this will soon level out over the course of a year and they'll find their natural "bonus for excellence" handicap and any built-in advantage will be gone.

Under the old USGA/GA system the bfe was inherent in the player's handicap index, so applied also to matchplay. But with matchplay it has been shown that without the bfe the majority of matches are won by the lower handicap player anyway. So bfe gives an unnecessary bonus to lower handicappers.

 

[rulefan]

The summaries at the top are really helpful. Thanks..... I would still precis further, but thats how to get the message over.

Bullet points. No waffle. It's pretty easy after that!

....there are couple of terms used that are not explained (unless I missed it)

Handicap index - is that the average of the "8 from 20?"

I guess, In practice, the course index is sorted out when you key your gross numbers into the computer? In And if you are playing matchplay, keep a calculator in your golf bag?

The very existence "constant factor" in the calculation demonstrates the wrong sort of people developed this!

I'm not sure the definition of Handicap Index is very helpful.
The measure of a player’s demonstrated ability calculated against the Slope Rating of a golf course of standard playing difficulty (that is, a course with a Slope Rating of 113) (see Rule 5.2).
But although you are correct in saying it is the Average of the lowest 8 of the most recent 20 score differentials rounded to 1 decimal place, that is an over simplification and it would be confusing to include a full explanation in a simple introduction.

I don't know what you mean by course index as the term does not appear anywhere.
But assuming you meant Course Handicap, perhaps I should have written

A player's Course Handicap may be calculated using the following formula:
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating / 113)
But there will be no need to do the calculation as the information will be available from a chart in or near the 1st tee, the pro shop and/or the club website.

 

[IanM]

Many thanks... I think I did mean Course Handicap.... Handicap Index explanation looks like another example of over engineering. It's either an average of best 8 from last 20, or it isn't.....it's maths. Or maybe the Rules-dudes are trying to mix the "rationale for it," with the "method of calculation" in the notes?

But need to clarify, the 8 scores used are the difference from the "abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment" number (in old money what would have been the CSS of the day??)

Blimey... I think I am starting to get this now. I guess our club handicapping software will give me the 8 from 20, the charts give me the "Course Handicap, " and if playing match-play, the other person will sort out their course handicap, then you do the difference as you do now. You'll soon know what you home course handicap is and most folk will just get used to it!

 

[mikejohnchapman]

OK getting off the original point here! Interesting none the less.

I was thinking about something like this, any comments other than I need to fix some formatting.

 

[rulefan]

Looks pretty good.
One correction "abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment" should be "playing conditions calculation (PCC)"

 

[Imurg]

Looks pretty good.
One correction "abnormal course and weather conditions adjustment" should be "playing conditions calculation (PCC)"

Is this PCC going to work in a similar manner to the current CSS. I notice it can move from -1 to +3...just like CSS