WHS working well for me

[Deleted member 30522]

I wasn't aware that Scottish clubs had an interface with the England Golf CDH. I thought each of the 4 CONGU Unions/Associations had their own independent CDH. Are you sure the hosting club didn't email to your home club?

As someone who lived in England but for a while kept my home club in Scotland, and then switched but still came "home" to play at my lifelong club as well as many Opens, the CONGU system linked up, there was none of this nonsense that you're getting now.

Of course, previously there was no point in countries around the world communicating scores because the fundamental systems were so different. But the near commonality of WHS will encourage national unions to produce a universal interface. I believe dotgolf are working on it.

Encourage? It should have been implicitly done as part of the roll out, that it isn't, and worse, that within the CONGU nations we've actually regressed is a shocking indictment of the capabilities of our golf administrators, IMO.

They made huge play of the fact that you could "take your handicap anywhere", despite literally nobody asking for that to be a thing, and yet can't actually upload a score from any other country on the planet when you try to "take it anywhere", even your nearest english speaking neighbours. Thumbs doon!

 

[rulefan]

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.

This relates to stroke play of course. The field size is only 2 in matches.

The HI is only concerned with the best 8 strokeplay rounds. A low capper will have a narrow range with his worst score not to far away. A high capper is likely to have many more scores higher than scores lower than the range. His 'normal' scores are likely to be significantly higher than his Index or CH. Whereas a low capper will be close to his Index or CH most of the time.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

This relates to stroke play of course. The field size is only 2 in matches.

The HI is only concerned with the best 8 strokeplay rounds. A low capper will have a narrow range with his worst score not to far away. A high capper is likely to have many more scores higher than scores lower than the range. His 'normal' scores are likely to be significantly higher than his Index or CH. Whereas a low capper will be close to his Index or CH most of the time.

Last sentance is very generalising, my scores for example range from 69 to 90 this year and my index is 2.5.

Thats just the rounds where I'm trying my absolute best and not counting when I have given up. Big assumption that low handicappers don't have car crashes, very easy to get on the bogey train and stay on it when you are having a bad day or the course is a proper test of golf.

 

[rulefan]

As someone who lived in England but for a while kept my home club in Scotland, and then switched but still came "home" to play at my lifelong club as well as many Opens, the CONGU system linked up, there was none of this nonsense that you're getting now.



Encourage? It should have been implicitly done as part of the roll out, that it isn't, and worse, that within the CONGU nations we've actually regressed is a shocking indictment of the capabilities of our golf administrators, IMO.

They made huge play of the fact that you could "take your handicap anywhere", despite literally nobody asking for that to be a thing, and yet can't actually upload a score from any other country on the planet when you try to "take it anywhere", even your nearest english speaking neighbours. Thumbs doon!

Blame Scotland they even wrote their own database/system. The CONGU supporting ISVs had to write two interfaces.
But just think of the software costs and testing time involved if everyone waited for one world wide data base.

But of course you can "take your handicap anywhere". It's just that you can't do it electronically

But I'm curious about "the CONGU system linked up"
Do you know how this was done? Do you know which ISV software was used? Which CDH number did you use (EG or SG)?

 

[wjemather]

Encourage? It should have been implicitly done as part of the roll out, that it isn't, and worse, that within the CONGU nations we've actually regressed is a shocking indictment of the capabilities of our golf administrators, IMO.

They made huge play of the fact that you could "take your handicap anywhere", despite literally nobody asking for that to be a thing, and yet can't actually upload a score from any other country on the planet when you try to "take it anywhere", even your nearest english speaking neighbours. Thumbs doon!

You'd have to ask Scottish Golf why they decided to diverge from the rest of CONGU when selecting their WHS platform supplier. Also, do not underestimate the scale of the work required to get different systems (many of which are located in different countries and subject to different laws) talking to each other while ensuring integrity and security of data.

And of course, you can now take your handicap anywhere. And many people were calling for a portable handicap (e.g. our annual club trippers to Portugal who now will not be spotting the ex-pats a few extra strokes). The rest of it will get there, but (as you and others are so keen to observe) things like cross-jurisdiction score submission are only needed for a very small minority of scores, so were obviously not prioritised for initial implementation.

 

[IanM]

Blame Scotland
But of course you can "take your handicap anywhere". It's just that you can't do it electronically

Yes, those Scots eh?? ! Well, the Welsh are up to it too, you can't add a course that I can also see from my bedroom window cos it is over water in England!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Blame Scotland they even wrote their own database/system. The CONGU supporting ISVs had to write two interfaces.
But just think of the software costs and testing time involved if everyone waited for one world wide data base.

But of course you can "take your handicap anywhere". It's just that you can't do it electronically

But I'm curious about "the CONGU system linked up"
Do you know how this was done? Do you know which ISV software was used? Which CDH number did you use (EG or SG)?

Oh believe me I blame SGU for a lot


Regarding the bold bit, HDID/Club2000 had a bigger grip on the market back then, we're talking pre-2010, and it's coming back to me now. I think you had to manually report back to my English club, but the process was simpler than now, they could find where I'd played from a drop down menu, so I apologise, my previous rant was misplaced, however we're a number of years on, we shouldn't be regressing at all, new launches should have as a minimum the capabilities of the existing software packages.

Did I say I blamed Scottish Golf?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

You'd have to ask Scottish Golf why they decided to diverge from the rest of CONGU when selecting their WHS platform supplier. Also, do not underestimate the scale of the work required to get different systems (many of which are located in different countries and subject to different laws) talking to each other while ensuring integrity and security of data.
.

My point being, there was a world system being introduced, that should have gone out to tender to a company who knew what they were doing to cover everyone, unfortunately the company that have their hands on the SG offering can't even cope with one country. Of course it's not easy, does mean that we should accept this mess? You don't launch until you're ready

 

[IanM]

does that we should accept this mess? You don't launch until you're ready

Apparently yes.

 

[Imurg]

I know how the system works and I know why this has happened but it still feels a bit wrong when you shoot you 3rd best score of the year and you don't get cut because the score that dropped out of the top 20 was exactly the same as the score today......
Elated but deflated at the same time.

 

[AussieKB]

In OZ we have had this system for years and I have seen people win an event and go out a full shot, and I am not joking, so get used to it.

 

[PJ87]

In OZ we have had this system for years and I have seen people win an event and go out a full shot, and I am not joking, so get used to it.

Go out? Do you mean go up? Go down?

 

[rulefan]

Go out? Do you mean go up? Go down?

It could be either.
My wife came second in a comp and came down a stroke. Her friend won and went up one.
It depends on the values of the old 20th, new score and old average scores.

 

[PJ87]

It could be either.
My wife came second in a comp and came down a stroke. Her friend won and went up one.
It depends on the values of the old 20th, new and old average scores.

I just don't get his expression of go out

 

[Deleted member 30522]

In OZ we have had this system for years and I have seen people win an event and go out a full shot, and I am not joking, so get used to it.

And yet "the world" decided this would be great. Bonkers

 

[Orikoru]

I just don't get his expression of go out

Yeah I think he meant up. Going down would be more akin to going 'in' I think.

 

[AussieKB]

Go out? Do you mean go up? Go down?

 

[AussieKB]

Sorry, Aussie expression, yes go up a full shot.

 

[Voyager EMH]

From observed difficulties at my club and what I've read on here, people are still struggling with what handicap to play off when playing casual golf with individual stableford format.
At my club and on here I've often heard something along the lines of, "...we don't have to (don't bother to) apply the 95%". This, in my view, is nonsense.

This confusion that many have here would not have happened if we had used the OZ system as there is simply no such thing as a Course Handicap.
So "playing off our course handicaps" never arises. They have GA Index and Daily Handicap and nothing in between.
I am not advocating that we use the OZ system, merely pointing out facts, again.
The OZ system means that any course and any tees if you score 36 stableford you are as near to your handicap as you can be. (pending PCC).
At my course it is 35 from the Whites and 37 from the yellows to be as close as possible to your handicap. (pending PCC)



The calculation of a differential is a little more involved than here.



If this information stimulates any further discussion, please do not address any criticism towards me over the merits or otherwise of the information that I have supplied.
If you don't like it, please move on to the next post with no further thought, thank you.

 

[Swango1980]

From observed difficulties at my club and what I've read on here, people are still struggling with what handicap to play off when playing casual golf with individual stableford format.
At my club and on here I've often heard something along the lines of, "...we don't have to (don't bother to) apply the 95%". This, in my view, is nonsense.

This confusion that many have here would not have happened if we had used the OZ system as there is simply no such thing as a Course Handicap.
So "playing off our course handicaps" never arises. They have GA Index and Daily Handicap and nothing in between.
I am not advocating that we use the OZ system, merely pointing out facts, again.
The OZ system means that any course and any tees if you score 36 stableford you are as near to your handicap as you can be. (pending PCC).
At my course it is 35 from the Whites and 37 from the yellows to be as close as possible to your handicap. (pending PCC)

View attachment 38743

The calculation of a differential is a little more involved than here.

View attachment 38744

If this information stimulates any further discussion, please do not address any criticism towards me over the merits or otherwise of the information that I have supplied.
If you don't like it, please move on to the next post with no further thought, thank you.

Having read through the Oz WHS manual a while ago, personally I'm a much bigger fan of it than what they decided to do in the UK. Cr-Par was included for a start, which pretty much eliminates the confusion of golfers not understanding why their handicap does not change like they'd expect when they play a much easier or harder course (in absolute terms). And, there is no confusion over the whole Playing Handicap nonsense, whether it be casual golf or competition. Of course, there will be others that say we in the UK have it right and it should not be questioned. Of course, for that argument to hold, we must say that Oz and the US (who include CR-Par at least) are inferior to us.