World Handicap System (WHS)

[sunshine]

Although I understand Rulefans statement regarding CR and Par, I don't think it is relevant to the original point that he was responding to. I also agree with sunshine, that Par has a meaning to probably 99% of golfers and no doubt the majority will compare their score to par, and will have no concept of CR just like they had no concept of SSS/CSS.

The main argument was, why wasn't CR-Par included in the UK, unlike other countries? I know England Golf had reasons to give, but overall I think it just confuses golfers when simply think their handicaps should change based on the absolute difficulty of the course, and they struggle more to visualise relative difficulty. My course is an easy example, where whites are definitely harder than yellows, with CR being 2.6 shots higher on whites. However, the slope on whites is 133 compared to 130 on yellows, so by and large golfers have the same course handicap on both courses, or perhaps 1 more shot on the whites depending on rounding. This is a puzzling concept to many, and many will automatically think the Slope is wrong and should be much higher on whites (it is not inconceivable that the slope on whites could actually be lower than yellows, despite having a higher course rating).

However, CR-Par would eliminate this issue. Course A, Par=72, CR=69, Slope = 130. Course B, Par=72, CR=75, Slope=130

Currently in UK, a 0 Indexer plays off 0 on both courses. If CR-Par used, a 0 Indexer plays off -3 at Course A, and off 3 at Course B. That is so much easier to understand.

My Course, Yellows Par=70, CR=66.8, Slope=130. Whites Par=70, CR=69.4, Slope=133

My Index is 8.7, so my Course Handicap is 10 off both yellows and whites. If CR-Par was used, I would have a course handicap of 6.8 (7) off yellows, and a course handicap of 9.6 (10) off whites. To me, that makes entirely more sense to most golfers, as it takes into account BOTH the absolute difficulty of the course and the RELATIVE difficulty for low and high handicappers. Golfers no longer need to evaluate their nett score to the CR when determining how they played relative to handicap, they can compare to par / 36 points.

Thanks. This post is really helpful.

I didn't realise there was such a fundamental difference. So the whole world has adopted one methodology and England is following another? Crazy!

I thought the key objective of the WHS was to align handicaps:
1. so that the handicap reflected the difficulty of the course where it was obtained
2. so that golfers received more shots on harder courses and fewer on easy courses

What has been delivered doesn't seem to meet either of those objectives.

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks. This post is really helpful.

I didn't realise there was such a fundamental difference. So the whole world has adopted one methodology and England is following another? Crazy!

I thought the key objective of the WHS was to align handicaps:
1. so that the handicap reflected the difficulty of the course where it was obtained
2. so that golfers received more shots on harder courses and fewer on easy courses

What has been delivered doesn't seem to meet either of those objectives.

-6 (I love Google)

 

[sunshine]

Can someone tell me off the top of their head what DJ's winning score was in the Masters?

I asked the same question and had this same debate with Rulefan on another thread! Actually it might have even been this thread.

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks. This post is really helpful.

I didn't realise there was such a fundamental difference. So the whole world has adopted one methodology and England is following another? Crazy!

I thought the key objective of the WHS was to align handicaps:
1. so that the handicap reflected the difficulty of the course where it was obtained
2. so that golfers received more shots on harder courses and fewer on easy courses

What has been delivered doesn't seem to meet either of those objectives.

When you listen to the general statements, WHS very much is sold as giving a player a course handicap based on the difficulty of the course. Most golfers understand that to mean the absolute difficulty of the course. However, if you listen to the wording carefully, or the caveats that follows, it is the difficulty of the course RELATIVE to other handicappers. Before WHS, so many people, even experienced golfers, simply did not understand SSS. So, they couldn't grasp the fact that a golfer from one course could fairly compete with a golfer from another of much different difficulty (albeit, relative difference was not accounted for). With WHS, virtually every club golfer I have spoken to think that this is no longer a concern, and that they will get loads more shots at absolutely more difficult courses. This then leads to complaints that the Slopes are too low/high, because they have no understanding that slope is only relative difficulty between low and high handicappers, rather than the absolute difficulty of the courses.

As a handicap secretary, I firmly believe I will spend much more time over the years of WHS trying to explain this to golfers, and that they need to compare their score to CR, not par. Much more time than I had to explain the concept of SSS.

Whether CR-Par is used or not, the system will still operate fairly for competing golfers, because if CR-Par is used, it is used equally for all golfers, so it just scales up or down everyones final score by an absolute amount (albeit rounding differences could have an impact on relative difference). I was just surprised the UK didn't apply this, as I think it saves so much confusion, especially when other nations are using it.

 

[Imurg]

Can someone tell me off the top of their head what DJ's winning score was in the Masters?

Level par I heard..

 

[sweaty sock]

(Removed out of context rant...)

 

[BubbaP]

Thanks. This post is really helpful.

I didn't realise there was such a fundamental difference. So the whole world has adopted one methodology and England is following another? Crazy!

I thought the key objective of the WHS was to align handicaps:
1. so that the handicap reflected the difficulty of the course where it was obtained
2. so that golfers received more shots on harder courses and fewer on easy courses

What has been delivered doesn't seem to meet either of those objectives.

Why are you singling out England?

 

[sunshine]

Why are you singling out England?

Because we were talking about England. What other countries have decided to go their own way?

 

[Swango1980]

Because we were talking about England. What other countries have decided to go their own way?

All UK countries do not use the CR-Par. Not sure what other countries do the same. USA include CR-Par.

What interests me is that, for the World Handicap System, I thought there would be one overall document for the WHS Rules of Handicapping, that was exactly the same worldwide. Then, there would be an associated document for each handicapping authority (such as Congu, USGA, etc) that highlighted all their variations. Both documents for the UK can be found on the CONGU website.

However, in the main WHS document on CONGU, the Course handicap is shown as Index x Slope/113. No mention of CR-Par. So, I assumed that the UK must be sticking to the WHS guidelines, and the USA are the ones that are doing their own thing, which would be reported on their associated regional document. However, I've just gone onto the USGA website to look at their main WHS document. Exactly the same format for the one on CONGU, but they show CR-Par in the Course Handicap calculation.

So, the Main WHS Rules of Handicapping document is actually different in different parts of the world. I am very surprised by that. If you read the one on the CONGU site, the opening pages clearly show it is an R&A / USGA joint document. However, if someone from the USA opened up our document, they would be given the wrong course handicap calculation, and vice versa. I cannot see anywhere on the document that says the information applies only to certain parts of the world.

Gone on to Golf Australia website, and their WHS document is completely different to ours, unless it is published somewhere less obvious on their website. They do not even seem to use the terms Handicap Index, Course Handicap or Playing Handicap. They have a GA handicap (which I think is their Index) and a Daily Handicap (handicap to be used in competition. The Daily Handicap Calculation = ((GA Handicap x Slope / 113) + (Scratch Rating - Par)) x 0.93. This is truly less like a World Handicap System than I first thought.

 

[sweaty sock]

Serious question then. When someone from the UK goes to (insert other country), do they just take their HI and apply the playing handicap adjustment as is relevant in the host country?

 

[Swango1980]

Serious question then. When someone from the UK goes to (insert other country), do they just take their HI and apply the playing handicap adjustment as is relevant in the host country?

Yeah. It should at the very least be compatible. So, you go to USA and CR-Par will be factored into the Course Handicap calculation, unlike here. You go to Australia, your Index is called a GA Handicap (and Course Rating is called Scratch Rating). It looks like in Australia, their Playing Handicap and Course Handicap are merged into one, the Daily Handicap. And this is effectively always equivalent to 93% our Course Handicap (but they also use CR-Par). This will be used in singles stroke play or match play

 

[Swango1980]

I'm actually getting pretty depressed about my screwed up handicap and I'm currently in an email chain with my club, County and EG, all fobbing me off.

I'm absolutely certain the county have not had a clue what they were doing when transferring data from scores this year.

So to check I'm not going nuts ?, here's some numbers if anyone wants to say what they think the Differentials should be:

Round 1:
CR 71.5
SSS 72
CSS 73
Score 70
113/125 = 0.9.

Round 2:
CR 71.3
SSS 72
CSS 72
Score 72
113/125 = 0.9

Thanks ?

Round 1, Score Differential = (70-71.5-1) x 113/125 = -2.3

Round 2, Score Differential = (72-71.3-0) x 113/125 = 0.6

I assumed the first round had a PCC of +1 due to CSS. I also assumed your scores had nothing worse than nett double bogey.

I assume that each round was on a different course (due to CR being different), and it is a coincidence the Slope is the same (125)?

 

[jim8flog]

Level par I heard..

Is that Based upon De Chams view of what par was

 

[jim8flog]

Because we were talking about England. What other countries have decided to go their own way?

Scotland and Ireland with some of the aspects.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Is that Based upon De Chams view of what par was

I thought it was 41pts with a blob!

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks, I completely agree so I haven't gone nuts.

Assumptions all correct, although the Slopes were actually 128 and 131 but the county tell me they had to use 125 for some reason ?‍, and it works out to 0.9 anyway so I'll let that ride....

So here's what I'm up against as this is what shows on my record ?

Round 1
Score 70
CR 73
PCC 2 (they've used the wrong SSS of 71 on the downloadable Away Score letter)
Differential -4.5 (-5 x 0.9)

Round 2
Score 72
CR 72
PCC 1 (using wrong SSS again)
Differential -0.9 (-1 x 0.9).

So these 2 scores are combining for a differential of -5.4, when actually they should be -1.7.

This has resulted in the total Differential being 3.7 lower than it should be, divided by 7 (19 scores in) means my hcap is 0.5 too low.

I know this doesn't sound much to some, but going from 1 to +1 is ridiculous, and I shouldn't be punished just because someone who's job it is to input my scores doesn't know what they're doing.

1 more score in and I'm up to 8 counting, 1 more after that and an equal best 69 drops off so if the above mess gets corrected I should be somewhere near what it was before.

Well, sounds like the Course Rating and PCC numbers used in reality, and what WHS has used are very different. Why have they been unable to put the real numbers in? At your handicap level I'd imagine even small differences are more significant. A difference in 0.5 shots for a 30 handicapper is nothing due to their variability, but to a very low handicapper it would be felt more due to their consistency (not that I've ever been that low, a 6 CONGU handicap is my best)

 

[rulefan]

I'm actually getting pretty depressed about my screwed up handicap and I'm currently in an email chain with my club, County and EG, all fobbing me off.

I'm absolutely certain the county have not had a clue what they were doing when transferring data from scores this year.

So to check I'm not going nuts ?, here's some numbers if anyone wants to say what they think the Differentials should be:

Round 1:
CR 71.5
SSS 72
CSS 73
Score 70
113/125 = 0.9.

Round 2:
CR 71.3
SSS 72
CSS 72
Score 72
113/125 = 0.9

Thanks ?

The county had no part in transferring pre Nov scores from the CDH to the WHS. This was done by England Golf using DotGolf software.

The transition program did not use CR (a decimal value) as this was not in the CDH data. The SSS (integer) was used instead of CR.
The difference between the CSS and the SSS was used as the PCC.

It would seem that the course details had not been passed correctly to EG as CR = 72 and SR = 125 are the default values used when the transition program cannot find the correct course/tees.

It may be
1) your course has not yet been rated under the new system or
2) your club manager did not respond to the EH letter requesting confirmation of course details (even though the course may have been rated in the last couple of years) or
3) EG did not process the info from your manager.
Most issues re 72/125 fall into the first or second of the above. The last is unusual and relatively rare.

 

[Swango1980]

All my scores from competitions at my home club are showing exactly correct, ie CR 71.5, Slope 128 and PCC as difference between CSS and SSS(72) where applicable.

The 2 scores that are wildly out were run by the County, ironically 1 of them at my home club.

This is a 69, CR 71.5, CSS 72 round my home course, the differential is -2.2:
View attachment 33811

This is a 70 round the same course, CR 71.5, CSS up 1 to 73, adjusted CR 72.5, but the differential is showing as -4.5..!!
View attachment 33812

If the club comps have the correct info showing, how can the county have it so far out unless they've just totally cocked it up?

Definitely a cock up somewhere, especially if the course has the right data for WHS. I presume everything looked OK when the scores were processed under CONGU. I wonder if similar issues would occur to players playing in away qualifiers run by clubs?

 

[rulefan]

If the club comps have the correct info showing, how can the county have it so far out unless they've just totally cocked it up?

Ah, you didn't say it was a county run comp.
If the county are not actually using the host club's ISV they may not have passed the correct course details through to EG.
I don't know if your county normally uses its own ISV or that of the club hosting the comp but that may well in fact be at the heart of the problem.
But the CDH (the source of the WHS input) should give a clue. Has your club shown you just what the CDH shows?

 

[rulefan]

I would have thought that by me providing the exact correct numbers, someone could just go in and correct it in a couple of minutes.

They probably could if there wasn't such a large backlog of individual issues.