WHS & ISV Issues (Please post only if you are a handicap secretary or involved in admin at your club)

[Old Skier]

I'm afraid the question of handicap differences in 4BBB is causing ructions in my club. Although the words in Rule 6 and Appendix C seemed clear to me I can see why others have a different understanding.
So, is 90% applied to each player's CH first and then the difference between individual PHs from the lowest established or
is the difference between the individual CHs from the lower established first and then 90% applied to the difference between CHs?

90% course HC. People need to apply some common sence. Everything works initialy from the CH.

 

[2blue]

90% course HC. People need to apply some common sense. Everything works initially from the CH.

The wording seems clear to me.
Work out what you're playing off first, PH ...... THEN sort the shots got off the lowest player.

 

[Old Skier]

The wording seems clear to me.
Work out what you're playing off first, PH ...... THEN sort the shots got off the lowest player.

I presume your having a laugh

 

[2blue]

I presume your having a laugh

Hows that?? All easily done, isnt it?

 

[Old Skier]

The wording seems clear to me.
Work out what you're playing off first, PH ...... THEN sort the shots got off the lowest player.

Or the first thing you work out is what your course HC is -

 

[rulefan]

Surely the Table in C/2, along with Example 2 underneath make it clear that you take 90% FIRST, then the difference?

That's what I thought and posted a note to members to that effect. But if you do the calculations in the example the 'wrong' way you get the same answer. So I couldn't demonstrate the point.

 

[Old Skier]

That's what I thought and posted a note to members to that effect. But if you do the calculations in the example the 'wrong' way you get the same answer. So I couldn't demonstrate the point.

Try the demo using someone with a very high index and let me know what happens, I hate sums

 

[wjemather]

That's what I thought and posted a note to members to that effect. But if you do the calculations in the example the 'wrong' way you get the same answer. So I couldn't demonstrate the point.

The result is not always the same. For example:

CH 15 = PH 14
CH 28 = PH 25

90% of difference in CH = 0.9 x (28 - 15) = 12
Full difference in PH = (25 - 14) = 11

 

[2blue]

The result is not always the same. For example:

CH 15 = PH 14
CH 28 = PH 25

90% of difference in CH = 0.9 x (28 - 15) = 12
Full difference in PH = (25 - 14) = 11

Well done that man. ??
Is 11 difference in H/caps the telling number..... asking for a friend ??

 

[rulefan]

The result is not always the same. For example:

CH 15 = PH 14
CH 28 = PH 25

90% of difference in CH = 0.9 x (28 - 15) = 12
Full difference in PH = (25 - 14) = 11

I know that but I was referring to the values in the C/2 table which makes it difficult to prove right or wrong.

"But if you do the calculations in the example the 'wrong' way you get the same answer. "

 

[wjemather]

I know that but I was referring to the values in the C/2 table which makes it difficult to prove right or wrong.

"But if you do the calculations in the example the 'wrong' way you get the same answer. "

Apologies if I misunderstood. I know you get it, however you stated that you "couldn't demonstrate the point", so I was merely providing a different example that does.

 

[rulefan]

Apologies if I misunderstood. I know you get it, however you stated that you "couldn't demonstrate the point", so I was merely providing a different example that does.

I see what you meant but it doesn't prove which is right only that they may produce different results. It would have been helpful (to me) if one of the entries produced a different result depending on 'before or after'.
The words don't include a clear sense of 'when'.

 

[nickjdavis]

Good spot! Could be handy. I can confirm it is in the Wales Golf Platform also.

Its been there a couple of days now.....pity it restricts you to a seven day time period for searching.

 

[wjemather]

I see what you meant but it doesn't prove which is right only that they may produce different results. It would have been helpful (to me) if one of the entries produced a different result depending on 'before or after'.
The words don't include a clear sense of 'when'.

The wording could certainly be improved (or include an additional clarification), but it is just about clear enough: "In general, after handicap allowances have been applied in match play formats, the player with the lowest Playing Handicap plays off zero strokes relative to the other player(s). The other player(s) receive(s) the difference between their own Playing Handicap and that of the player with the lowest Playing Handicap."

 

[rosecott]

Has anyone yet run a Texas Scramble using the WHS handicap allowances?

I have been setting up the draw for our first one with our Seniors next Friday and the new handicap allowances are going to cause a bit of a stir.

You are seldom lucky enough to have it working out neatly in teams of 4 so you have to have a team handicap for a 3-man team which takes into account the disparity in opportunities between a 3-man and 4-man team. Our system finally settled on 10% of combined handicaps for 4-man teams and 1/6th for 3-man teams and that worked well for us. A 4-man team of handicaps 15/20/24/25 would get a team handicap of 9.4 and a 3-man team of 18/22/28 would get a team handicap of 11.3. It would normally work out at around 2 higher for a 3-man team, everyone was happy with that and results showed that 3-man teams had a similar success rate to 4-man teams

Now, using the new allowances, the same 4-man team gets a team handicap of 15 and the 3-man team gets 13 – a complete turnaround which puts a 3-man team at a huge disadvantage.

I know there was a heated discussion on another thread about the new allowances but this just doesn’t make sense.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I notice in the Reports section of the WHS Platform, there is now one for "General Play Scores". I assume this is a recent addition?

Yes - I saw this but the only timescale available is 7 days and not selectable for longer which is a shame. A means of picking up EG App entries I guess?

 

[wjemather]

Has anyone yet run a Texas Scramble using the WHS handicap allowances?

I have been setting up the draw for our first one with our Seniors next Friday and the new handicap allowances are going to cause a bit of a stir.

You are seldom lucky enough to have it working out neatly in teams of 4 so you have to have a team handicap for a 3-man team which takes into account the disparity in opportunities between a 3-man and 4-man team. Our system finally settled on 10% of combined handicaps for 4-man teams and 1/6th for 3-man teams and that worked well for us. A 4-man team of handicaps 15/20/24/25 would get a team handicap of 9.4 and a 3-man team of 18/22/28 would get a team handicap of 11.3. It would normally work out at around 2 higher for a 3-man team, everyone was happy with that and results showed that 3-man teams had a similar success rate to 4-man teams

Now, using the new allowances, the same 4-man team gets a team handicap of 15 and the 3-man team gets 13 – a complete turnaround which puts a 3-man team at a huge disadvantage.

I know there was a heated discussion on another thread about the new allowances but this just doesn’t make sense.

We have run one scramble, but all teams had 4 players so didn't have to deal with your situation. However, our intention was to add a "ghost" player with an index of about 18.0-20.0 to any 3-person team to boost their team handicap.

 

[rosecott]

We have run one scramble, but all teams had 4 players so didn't have to deal with your situation. However, our intention was to add a "ghost" player with an index of about 18.0-20.0 to any 3-person team to boost their team handicap.

I'll certainly have that as a backup plan when the complaining starts.

 

[Old Skier]

Any V1 users unable to print off results sheets today 16 May

 

[2blue]

We have run one scramble, but all teams had 4 players so didn't have to deal with your situation. However, our intention was to add a "ghost" player with an index of about 18.0-20.0 to any 3-person team to boost their team handicap.

I'm just wondering how, practically, this happens. Is the 'ghost' created as a golf member then selected from the V1 list to make-up the team. If so would you need 'Ghost-1' 'Ghost-2' etc?