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

Old Skier

Tour Winner
Joined
May 10, 2013
Messages
9,607
Location
Instow - play in North Devon
Visit site
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.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,484
Visit site
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.
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,011
Location
Bristol
Visit site
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

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
4,185
Location
Leeds,
Visit site
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

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,484
Visit site
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

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,011
Location
Bristol
Visit site
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

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,484
Visit site
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'.
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,011
Location
Bristol
Visit site
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

Money List Winner
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
7,652
Location
Notts
Visit site
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.
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,011
Location
Bristol
Visit site
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

Money List Winner
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
7,652
Location
Notts
Visit site
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.
 

2blue

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
4,185
Location
Leeds,
Visit site
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?
 
Top