WHS working well for me

Voyager EMH

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
873
Location
Leicestershire
You correct handicap index is what WHS calculates, it's not worked to 2 decimal places. Also you must be working it out wrong anyway, if you're 2.94125, then that's 2.9 not 3.
First bold bit - I am inclined to agree. Differentials are one decimal place and that's that.
Second bold bit - I calculated my differentials correctly and correctly rounded them to 2 decimal places and did the average correctly. Correctly, correctly, correctly average is 2.94125.
 

Voyager EMH

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
873
Location
Leicestershire
First world problems. Tell the press, they may run with that story, knock down climate change and lack of delivery drivers further down the list of headlines :)

Personally, I wouldn't stress about it.
Personally, I am not stressing or inclined to. I think I will take the easy option of living with it.
Thought this might be of interest to WHS critics, however.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
432
First bold bit - I am inclined to agree. Differentials are one decimal place and that's that.
Second bold bit - I calculated my differentials correctly and correctly rounded them to 2 decimal places and did the average correctly. Correctly, correctly, correctly average is 2.94125.
OK, but if it's 2.94125.....then it's not 2.95, it's 2.94 so should be 2.9 not 3.0, yes?
 

ger147

Tour Winner
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
4,662
Location
Cumbernauld
First world problems. Tell the press, they may run with that story, knock down climate change and lack of delivery drivers further down the list of headlines :)

Personally, I wouldn't stress about it.
You never know, it could knock Texas Scramble allowances or initial WHS handicap allocations off the lead story slot on tonight's News at Ten...
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
2,849
But if round to one decimal, 2.94....rounds down not up, you only round up once hitting 2,95....
The point he is making is that, WHS calculates Score Diff to one decimal place. Then adds them up and divides by 8 to get average of 2.95, thus Index of 3 0.

He has done exact same calculation, but worked out each Score Diff to 2 decimal places instead of 1, thus he gets an end Index of 2.9.
 

Voyager EMH

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
873
Location
Leicestershire
Why? Individual differentials are expressed (ie rounded) to the nearest 10th.
Yes they are, but why are they not rounded to two decimal places?
This would produce a Handicap Index that is correct to one decimal place instead of being possibly inaccurate by plus or minus 0.1.

WHS has built-in this inaccuracy and it could very easily be avoided.
 
Last edited:

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
10,912
Yes they are, but why are they not rounded to two decimal places?
This would produce a Handicap Index that is correct to one decimal place instead of being possibly inaccurate by plus or minus one decimal place.

WHS has built-in this inaccuracy and it could very easily be avoided.
Is 1 dec place in 1 case in 10 really significant, given that CH is calculated to be a whole number anyway.
But for players to make sense of your method, differentials would have to be displayed to 2 dec places, unless they recalculate them themselves.
 

Voyager EMH

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
873
Location
Leicestershire
Is 1 dec place in 1 case in 10 really significant, given that CH is calculated to be a whole number anyway.
But for players to make sense of your method, differentials would have to be displayed to 2 dec places, unless they recalculate them themselves.
Yes it is significant. A slope of 132 makes a CH of 3 for an index of 2.9 but 4 for 3.0 giving me a whole extra shot which would not happen if differentials were more accurately calculated.

No one needs to make sense of my method. It is not my method. It is WHS method.
I am merely pointing out that WHS method is inaccurate due to the possibility of an accumulation of 8 rounding tolerances.
This inaccuracy would not happen if WHS differentials were two decimal places as that would create a handicap index correct to one decimal place.
The current WHS method will always produce some inaccurate handicap indices (plus or minus 0.1) and some of those will have an inaccurate course handicap (plus or minus one whole shot)
Same method, but more accurate arithmetic, would improve the WHS.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
10,912
Yes it is significant. A slope of 132 makes a CH of 3 for an index of 2.9 but 4 for 3.0 giving me a whole extra shot which would not happen if differentials were more accurately calculated.
Both produce the same PH

No one needs to make sense of my method. It is not my method. It is WHS method.
I am merely pointing out that WHS method is inaccurate due to the possibility of an accumulation of 8 rounding tolerances.
This inaccuracy would not happen if WHS differentials were two decimal places as that would create a handicap index correct to one decimal place.
The current WHS method will always produce some inaccurate handicap indices (plus or minus 0.1) and some of those will have an inaccurate course handicap (plus or minus one whole shot)
Same method, but more accurate arithmetic, would improve the WHS.
Of course the rather spurious accuracy of the Course & Bogey Ratings (and therefore Slope) on a particular day mean that Differentials are only approximations anyway. And penalty scores can skew any indication of normal ability.

Interestingly, one objective of the WHS is "to indicate with sufficient accuracy the score a golfer is reasonably capable of achieving .........". Surely whole numbers is sufficient given that scores are in whole numbers.
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
733
Location
Bristol
Yes it is significant. A slope of 132 makes a CH of 3 for an index of 2.9 but 4 for 3.0 giving me a whole extra shot which would not happen if differentials were more accurately calculated.

No one needs to make sense of my method. It is not my method. It is WHS method.
I am merely pointing out that WHS method is inaccurate due to the possibility of an accumulation of 8 rounding tolerances.
This inaccuracy would not happen if WHS differentials were two decimal places as that would create a handicap index correct to one decimal place.
The current WHS method will always produce some inaccurate handicap indices (plus or minus 0.1) and some of those will have an inaccurate course handicap (plus or minus one whole shot)
Same method, but more accurate arithmetic, would improve the WHS.
Unfortunately, you're starting from a flawed premise that any handicap system provides an accurate handicap. They don't. They merely (aim to) provide the best possible approximation of players' ability in order to allow them to complete against each other as equitably as possible. The margin of error in the resultant handicaps is much greater than 0.1, and probably (for many/most) greater than a full stroke.

As such, a 0.1 difference in the result due to the compound effect of rounding is insignificant to the overall result, even if it does occasionally produce a different Course Handicap.
 

Voyager EMH

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
873
Location
Leicestershire
I suppose it all depends on whether you prefer correct arithmetic or "its not exactly correct all the time, but a few wrong answers don't matter much."
I see no point in "built-in" inaccuracies, when correct arithmetic makes more sense, is not harder to do, and would be correct every time.
 

Voyager EMH

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
873
Location
Leicestershire
Unfortunately, you're starting from a flawed premise that any handicap system provides an accurate handicap. They don't. They merely (aim to) provide the best possible approximation of players' ability in order to allow them to complete against each other as equitably as possible. The margin of error in the resultant handicaps is much greater than 0.1, and probably (for many/most) greater than a full stroke.

As such, a 0.1 difference in the result due to the compound effect of rounding is insignificant to the overall result, even if it does occasionally produce a different Course Handicap.
I disagree.
I am not starting with any premise whatsoever.

I am pointing out that differentials calculated to one decimal place only produces an inaccurate calculation of an average of 8 differentials.
There is no premise there. It is a statement of fact. The WHS arithmetic of "average of best 8" is flawed.

I have made no premise or judgement about whether the whole system produces a realistic handicap.

I have pointed out inaccurate arithmetic.
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
733
Location
Bristol
I disagree.
I am not starting with any premise whatsoever.

I am pointing out that differentials calculated to one decimal place only produces an inaccurate calculation of an average of 8 differentials.
There is no premise there. It is a statement of fact. The WHS arithmetic of "average of best 8" is flawed.

I have made no premise or judgement about whether the whole system produces a realistic handicap.

I have pointed out inaccurate arithmetic.
Despite your assertions, the arithmetic is neither inaccurate nor incorrect; it is merely subject to various rounding errors at several stages of the process. Not rounding at one step does not undo the rest of the rounding.

Firstly, the the ratings upon which the differentials are derived are themselves subject to rounding (this is probably the most significant); then score differentials are rounded; then the Handicap Index is rounded; then the Course Handicap is rounded; and finally the Playing Handicap is rounded. You are focussing on the step where rounding possibly has the least significance.

When a 0.1 (or even 0.01 ;)) difference in index regularly results in the same one stroke difference on the course as a 1.9 difference in index, and the average player can easily shoot ten strokes different from one day to the next, the overall significance of such rounding errors is inconsequential.
 
Top