Orikoru
Tour Winner
Three strokes.
WHS working well for me
- Thread starter jim8flog
- Start date
IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 12,313
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
You can change mentality and culture. But it is hard t do and it isn't done by issuing 200 page manuals!!!
And nuts to that anyway. Some golf is competition, some is "just for fun!" Thank the Lord for the difference!
Swango1980
Well-known member
I posted this on the Ryder Cup thread, but maybe WHS fans would be interested what Indexes would be given to Ryder Cup players based on this weekend. Maybe some surprising results, but one thing is for sure, they are all pretty decent players
So, having a look at the hole scores for each player, I was bored and decided to give each player a WHS Index based on the Course Rating and Slope at Whistling Straits, assuming they were posting these scores to get their 1st handicap. I only took the fourballs and singles scores (obviously), so a few players will have fewer than 3 scores. So, I just assumed whatever score(s) they posted, would be their best once there other scores were submitted to make up 3. It is always interesting when us club golfers are usually critical of how players played, how they let us down, etc. However, the results below indicate that all 24 players are still pretty damn good golfers, bearing in mind these scores are also based with having the pressure of the Ryder Cup on their shoulders, rather than going out with a social knock with their mates. Note, Europeans highlighted in bold.
1. D Johnson -11.1
1. D Berger -11.1
3. P Cantlay -10.3
3. B Dechambeau -10.3
3. B Koepka -10.3
6. C Morikawa -9.6
6. V Hofland -9.6
6. P Casey -9.6
6. T Finau -9.6
6. I Poulter -9.6
11. R McIlroy -8.8
11. S Scheffler -8.8
11. J Thomas -8.8
11. J Spieth -8.8
11. T Fleetwood -8.8
11. M Fitzpatrick -8.8
17. S Lowry -8.1
17. S Garcia -8.1
17. B Wiesberger -8.1
17. L Westwood -8.1
21. J Rahm -7.4
21. H English -7.4
23. X Schauffele -6.6
24. T Hatton -5.9
So, having a look at the hole scores for each player, I was bored and decided to give each player a WHS Index based on the Course Rating and Slope at Whistling Straits, assuming they were posting these scores to get their 1st handicap. I only took the fourballs and singles scores (obviously), so a few players will have fewer than 3 scores. So, I just assumed whatever score(s) they posted, would be their best once there other scores were submitted to make up 3. It is always interesting when us club golfers are usually critical of how players played, how they let us down, etc. However, the results below indicate that all 24 players are still pretty damn good golfers, bearing in mind these scores are also based with having the pressure of the Ryder Cup on their shoulders, rather than going out with a social knock with their mates. Note, Europeans highlighted in bold.
1. D Johnson -11.1
1. D Berger -11.1
3. P Cantlay -10.3
3. B Dechambeau -10.3
3. B Koepka -10.3
6. C Morikawa -9.6
6. V Hofland -9.6
6. P Casey -9.6
6. T Finau -9.6
6. I Poulter -9.6
11. R McIlroy -8.8
11. S Scheffler -8.8
11. J Thomas -8.8
11. J Spieth -8.8
11. T Fleetwood -8.8
11. M Fitzpatrick -8.8
17. S Lowry -8.1
17. S Garcia -8.1
17. B Wiesberger -8.1
17. L Westwood -8.1
21. J Rahm -7.4
21. H English -7.4
23. X Schauffele -6.6
24. T Hatton -5.9
sweaty sock
Hacker
So your saying you have an unfair advantage of 1 shot over a player who you are 0.004 shots better than. Because the handicap system is so accurate it can classify peoples ability to thousands of a shot.
Fair point well made.
I would wonder how accurately the PCC and course rating are calculated? If the difficulty cant be resolved to the same accuracy then as Rules Doc mentioned, you are using false precision.
HampshireHog
Assistant Pro
Assuming you played @95% Five shots
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Eh? Why would you assume that?
HampshireHog
Assistant Pro
Because I would always play off 95% of my course handicap for scoring Stableford, as I would in a comp.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
I see no reason to do that. More maths, worse score, there's no up side.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Sorry, My place is 38 points to par. My mistake
Swango1980
Well-known member
Is the Course Rating = Par?
A player could get 39 points and have a handicap increase anyway, it all depends on what the latest score replaces.
HampshireHog
Assistant Pro
Improves your Maths, less chance of making a mistake on your card in a comp, not turning up in comp and psychologically thinking you’ve lost one or two shots compared to normal?
Orikoru
Tour Winner
I just think it's stupid, if I'm to play off 95% all the time then why didn't they just include that in the calculation and make that my handicap in the first place. And I don't see the point about mistakes on the card either as I thought you only need to write gross score anyway.
wjemather
Well-known member
No. More chance of making a mistake by relying on mental arithmetic instead of a computer. In any case, player scorecard requirements are gross hole scores, Course Handicap and certification - other than counting strokes, mental arithmetic is not needed for any of these. Simpler to just play with your Course Handicap and leave any allowances and adjustments to the committee.
rosecott
Money List Winner
Is that against par or Course Rating?
HampshireHog
Assistant Pro
It’s your prerogative, I can’t imagine why anyone would score themselves differently to normal. Our comp requirements are to have entered your CH and PH if you didn’t factor in the 95% for PH it’s a DQ.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Yet another reason the new system is stupid. The amount of comp rounds I play have been less than one a month to be honest to your perception of 'normal' is not the same as mine. My normal is simply to enjoy the round and play off whatever you believe your handicap is.
I have no idea. But yes, that is probably where the explanation lies.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Well, when we play roll ups we need players to use their mental arithmetic skills to work out the 95%, no Committee to do it for us. Most of the field just say we'll use Course Handicap. However, given there is money involved, as a single figure handicapper I'm not happy that. Otherwise we might as well just say that anyone with a handicap over 10 gets a bonus point, and anyone over 30 gets 2 bonus points.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
No. I make no false precision.
I make no other assumptions, claims of accuracy etc of the whole system or any other aspect of the system.
I merely state, as a fact, that the average of 8 calculation is lazy and poor arithmetic.
Swango1980
Well-known member
The arithmetic is correct, you are simply occasionally getting a slightly different end result based on the point at which you round numbers in the process. And even on the rare occasion you may get a decimal point difference in result, more often than not it will make zero difference to the handicap you actually use to work out your score in a competition.
You've made your point. No one has disagreed that on these very very very rare occasions you might get this very very marginally different answer. So, you do not need to keep making this point, no one is saying you are wrong. What they do seem to be saying is that, no one cares. And, I do not really think you care. All the way back in post 542 you stated "Personally, I am not stressing or inclined to. I think I will take the easy option of living with it." If that is the case, then stop going on about it. Otherwise you are showing there is much less accuracy with the meaning of your words than the mathematical inaccuracies you keep going on about with WHS.
wjemather
Well-known member
Full Course Handicap is equitable for fields of fewer than 30 players - only CONGU (that I'm aware of) has decided to apply the allowance to all competitions.
Why on earth would you want to use 95% allowances in rollups?? Absolutely unnecessary. (As you describe) it's just lower handicappers tipping the odds in their favour.
Similar threads
