WHS working well for me

[wjemather]

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.

If this is the case, your committee is acting contrary to the Rules of Golf and their interpretations.

 

[Swango1980]

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.

Interesting. Our handicap authority say these Allowances are mandatory, but you say we should just ignore them because, why? If I play in a competition in a club competition players will get one score, but if we were to play in a competition between ourselves, exact same format and rules, scores will be different.

What other guidelines can we ignore from our handicap authority?

Also, sometimes our roll ups have more than 30 players, so is it OK if we use our arithmetic skills then?

 

[wjemather]

Interesting. Our handicap authority say these Allowances are mandatory, but you say we should just ignore them because, why? If I play in a competition in a club competition players will get one score, but if we were to play in a competition between ourselves, exact same format and rules, scores will be different.

What other guidelines can we ignore from our handicap authority?

Also, sometimes our roll ups have more than 30 players, so is it OK if we use our arithmetic skills then?

(As you already know) CONGU has not made the allowances mandatory for anything except formally organised competitions. Whichever way you try and justify it, it's very clear from your earlier comment that you are just making your rollups more complicated than they need to be purely for your own benefit.

 

[badgergm]

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.

Why does the size of the field matter here?

 

[Voyager EMH]

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.

So why do you go on about it then?
You have comments to make, usually very good ones.
I have my comments to make.
I feel I should be allowed to respond when others pass comments about my posts. Or am I wrong to make this assumption?

 

[wjemather]

Why does the size of the field matter here?

It doesn't especially, but the implication was that rollups (which are generally <30 players) wouldn't be fair/equitable without the 95% allowance - which simply isn't true (RoH appendix C/1).

 

[Backsticks]

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.

Even though people are explaining that it is neither lazy nor poor arithmetic because the accuracy of handicaps in the first place is greater than 0.1? It is probably 1 or greater anyway. So concern about 'precision' in one element is misplaced when the error is greater than that. It would be like complaining about road signs not giving precision to feet and inches, so that you know the distance to your destination. Yes, factually it would be more correct and precise. But in practice, useless precision.

 

[Swango1980]

(As you already know) CONGU has not made the allowances mandatory for anything except formally organised competitions. Whichever way you try and justify it, it's very clear from your earlier comment that you are just making your rollups more complicated than they need to be purely for your own benefit.

So, in Congu's guidance, they state:

"The National Associations within CONGU® have determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory."

I appreciate when we play with mates, we can do what we wish, we could scrap handicaps altogether. However, when using WHS handicaps, should we not be following the guidance set out by the authorities? If I play fourball match play with my mates, shall we also just ignore the 90% allowances and play full course handicap? If we do no0t follow the WHS and CONGU guidance, surely that is just going to make things more confusing. Players may play in roll ups week in week out and use 100% course handicap. Then enter a comp and then nor realise, or be confused as hell, that suddenly they only get 95%

 

[sweaty sock]

Even though people are explaining that it is neither lazy nor poor arithmetic because the accuracy of handicaps in the first place is greater than 0.1? It is probably 1 or greater anyway. So concern about 'precision' in one element is misplaced when the error is greater than that. It would be like complaining about road signs not giving precision to feet and inches, so that you know the distance to your destination. Yes, factually it would be more correct and precise. But in practice, useless precision.

Its more like going to the museum and claiming that an artifact is 3000 year, 2 months, 4 days and 6 hours old. A very specific age, Using the justification that the curator told you it was 3000 years old on your last visit, which was 2 months 4 days and 6 hours ago. Its adding layers of precision to a number that was much less precise to begin with.

So given your playing handicap is a whole number, your course rating is to one decimal place, you can never claim any more precision than that. Its just good scientific method.

Really your handicap, if it were a scientific experiment, would have error bars to account for the innaccuracies in the data, that would take care of the dirty arithmetic in voyagers example. But error bars on handicap would make no sense so they are left out.

Im saying no more, people are getting entrenched...

 

[badgergm]

It doesn't especially, but the implication was that rollups (which are generally <30 players) wouldn't be fair/equitable without the 95% allowance - which simply isn't true (RoH appendix C/1).

thanks for the reference, hadn’t seen that. Not obvious to me why field sizes have an impact on equity though. Counter intuitive, to me anyway.

 

[Swango1980]

It doesn't especially, but the implication was that rollups (which are generally <30 players) wouldn't be fair/equitable without the 95% allowance - which simply isn't true (RoH appendix C/1).

Our next golf weekend has over 30 players. Arithmetic required for the 95% allowance?

 

[Swango1980]

thanks for the reference, hadn’t seen that. Not obvious to me why field sizes have an impact on equity though. Counter intuitive, to me anyway.

The larger the field, the higher the chance a higher handicapper will win. This is because a players Index is based on the average of a players best 8 scores. The range of these 8 scores will be a lot higher compared to a very low handicapper, thus their best score will be more under the average of these scores (i.e. more under their Index). As the field size increases, and the number of higher handicappers increase, then you increase the odds that one of these higher handicappers will shoot a top score, towards their best in 20. Therefore increase the chances the event will be won by a high handicapper (as this is mathematically lower under their index than a lower indexer could realistically shoot in relation to their Index). The 95% is there to try and remove that imbalance. The main WHS manual recommends the 95% for field sizes over 30 players. CONGU makes the 95% mandatory over here, regardless of field size.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

As many say there is absolutely no need to enter PH on a card - so to DQ someone who doesn’t enter it or works out 95% incorrectly or not at all is ludicrous.

 

[Bdill93]

Because I would always play off 95% of my course handicap for scoring Stableford, as I would in a comp.

I do this too. Always play off PH not CH. Why would I play off 17 with mates but 16 in a comp? Might as well just get used to 16! Just a strange part of WHS I have never understood.

 

[Orikoru]

I do this too. Always play off PH not CH. Why would I play off 17 with mates but 16 in a comp? Might as well just get used to 16! Just a strange part of WHS I have never understood.

Nail on the head there. Since I play comps infrequently I just save myself the bother of worrying about it. With mates we just use our indexes to do the points, and in comps I just put my scores in and let the computer figure it out.

 

[Swango1980]

Nail on the head there. Since I play comps infrequently I just save myself the bother of worrying about it. With mates we just use our indexes to do the points, and in comps I just put my scores in and let the computer figure it out.

You use your Index to do the points? So, if your index was 15.3, for example, you would play off 15?

 

[Orikoru]

You use your Index to do the points? So, if your index was 15.3, for example, you would play off 15?

Yeah. Actually we did do it the proper way just once recently, on an away course because it absolutely bucketed down and using the course hcap gave us more shots to compensate. But usually we can't be bothered.

 

[HampshireHog]

I do this too. Always play off PH not CH. Why would I play off 17 with mates but 16 in a comp? Might as well just get used to 16! Just a strange part of WHS I have never understood.

My thoughts exactly, I don’t think it’s particularly arduous to subtract 1 from your CH if you are above 11. It’s just part of WHS, I just get on with it.

We also do 90% thing for a friendly 4BBB, maybe my playing group are just odd?

 

[wjemather]

Yeah. Actually we did do it the proper way just once recently, on an away course because it absolutely bucketed down and using the course hcap gave us more shots to compensate. But usually we can't be bothered.

If you're all similar handicaps or your Slope is close to 113 (as it is at Grim's Dyke), it won't make much difference, but is looking at a chart by the first tee/pro shop really that onerous?

 

[Bdill93]

My thoughts exactly, I don’t think it’s particularly arduous to subtract 1 from your CH if you are above 11. It’s just part of WHS, I just get on with it.

We also do 90% thing for a friendly 4BBB, maybe my playing group are just odd?

I wouldnt call it odd. Id call it the right way to do it