World Handicap System (WHS)

[rulefan]

...and are the ISVs having to really do a lot of software updating? If I understand it correctly all of the handicapping changes, course condition adjustment calculations...its all going to be managed centrally....effectively leaving the ISV's to manage something that is little more than "competition management" software. I reckon they're going to strip out a whole load of code, making their software a lot less complex and easier to maintain, so I would hope they wouldn't charge more for doing less.

The updating is primarily in the area of uploading and downloading appropriate information to and from the WHS database. This is a quite different interface from the current CDH system. Competition management will not change much except for holding the slope and bogey ratings, calculating the correct playing handicaps and, I believe, providing an interface for players and club officials to access the player record in the WHS DB.
Maybe not a lot but still a cost.

 

[jim8flog]

As Nick brilliantly demonstrated, it isn't really different in the end. You are just doing the 90% bit at a different point, but result is the same.

But that is one of the points it is different in the end depending what the decimal point figure is . As already said it can make a one shot difference to the playing handicap by rounding up/down the playing handicap or the course handicap.

 

[nickjdavis]

Brilliant. I stand corrected, and trust this works for all eventualities.

Well... Its perhaps brilliant until you look at the opportunity for error...

Because we all know that once the calculation to get to 5.4, 10.8, 15.3 and 22.5 is done, golfers will then round these to 5,11,15 and 23 and then subtract the lowest ,giving shots of 0, 6,10 and 18. (edit: I see that whilst I was composing the text below that jim8flog has made a similar point)

One thing I would like to make clear....many of my posts on this topic are seemingly critical and do little but pick holes in the WHS and its processes. Many folks might reach the not unreasonable conclusion that I'm some sort of Flat Earther, resistant to change, and am anti the WHS.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the WHS has the potential to be a very good system. Golf has long needed a means of normalising handicaps so that a handicap golfer can play at another course and receive the appropriate number of shots, to take into account the relative difficulties of the course he is playing and the course where most of his handicap is built.

However, what I do rail against is the somewhat lack of consideration given to smaller clubs, often "staffed" by volunteers who actually have a day job away from golf...clubs that do not have a permanent committee presence every day at the course. I dont like the imposition of processes that potentially complicate the lives of such volunteers and add uneccessary cost. Given that it is those same volunteers who will be responsible for communicating the machinations of the WHS to the wider club membership I struggle with the lack of clarity of information coming from higher authorities. Poorly written and error strewn communications, presented by people who are also clearly ill at ease with the new system does nothing to allay my fears.

I do appreciate the candid discussion we can have here and the insight provided by some people who might be "a bit more in the know" than others.

I'm sorry If I sometimes come across as an argumentative arse. I've only got the best interests of the membership ay my club at heart.

 

[Swango1980]

But that is one of the points it is different in the end depending what the decimal point figure is . As already said it can make a one shot difference to the playing handicap by rounding up/down the playing handicap or the course handicap.

OK, mathematically speaking, whichever way you do it, you are effectively doing the same thing (in other words, you are using a different technique to come to the same mathematical outcome (i.e. it's not suddenly giving higher handicappers a better advantage than now because you are not taking 90% the difference, you are.

However, you are also correct that, in practical terms you could come up with a different whole number in the shot difference calculations, depending on where the decimal point lies. I fully agree with you on that point, and it is based on the fact that rounding of numbers will happen at different points in the calculation, which will lead to a margin of error in the final result when one method is used over another. I guess similar to, in singles, calculating course handicap in one calculation, then using a rounded value to get playing handicap, rather than doing everything on one go and rounding at the end.

So, yes, whichever method is used, the authorities need to make sure that we all use a consistent method. And, it is just a bit more "complicated" than before because of decimal points in course handicap and how those are translated into playing handicap (as currently, all we do is take the whole number of shot difference and take 90%, we are never worried about what our decimal handicap is.

 

[Swango1980]

Well... Its perhaps brilliant until you look at the opportunity for error...

Because we all know that once the calculation to get to 5.4, 10.8, 15.3 and 22.5 is done, golfers will then round these to 5,11,15 and 23 and then subtract the lowest ,giving shots of 0, 6,10 and 18. (edit: I see that whilst I was composing the text below that jim8flog has made a similar point)

One thing I would like to make clear....many of my posts on this topic are seemingly critical and do little but pick holes in the WHS and its processes. Many folks might reach the not unreasonable conclusion that I'm some sort of Flat Earther, resistant to change, and am anti the WHS.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the WHS has the potential to be a very good system. Golf has long needed a means of normalising handicaps so that a handicap golfer can play at another course and receive the appropriate number of shots, to take into account the relative difficulties of the course he is playing and the course where most of his handicap is built.

However, what I do rail against is the somewhat lack of consideration given to smaller clubs, often "staffed" by volunteers who actually have a day job away from golf...clubs that do not have a permanent committee presence every day at the course. I dont like the imposition of processes that potentially complicate the lives of such volunteers and add uneccessary cost. Given that it is those same volunteers who will be responsible for communicating the machinations of the WHS to the wider club membership I struggle with the lack of clarity of information coming from higher authorities. Poorly written and error strewn communications, presented by people who are also clearly ill at ease with the new system does nothing to allay my fears.

I do appreciate the candid discussion we can have here and the insight provided by some people who might be "a bit more in the know" than others.

I'm sorry If I sometimes come across as an argumentative arse. I've only got the best interests of the membership ay my club at heart.

No problem in explaining yourself. Nothing wrong with being overly critical. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. I think it is a good idea to be overly critical at times, or be devil's advocate, because it is the best way to identify potential issues, even if they are very minor. At least it may lead to a chance of something being done about it, or putting it on people's radar to look out for.

I'm worried that the promotion of it makes it seem like such a vastly greater system, and it is clear to me that golfers have got the impression they'll simply get loads more shots at harder courses, simple. All these issues you have raised (and I have elsewhere) hopefully highlight that, there is a pretty good chance that it could be confusing to golfers in many respects. I am a lot more comfortable now in explaining the benefit of making it fairer on relatively easy / hard courses between low and high handicappers, by the accidental realisation on the 18 hole Par 3 thread. But, like Brexit (sorry), it's unlikely that WHS will make every single aspect of handicapping "better" than what we have now. There are bound to be drawbacks

 

[Vikingman]

I am pretty new to all this and one of my concern's is supplementary cards. So far I have never encountered any. My understanding is that a supplementary card can be submitted at any time subject to conforming to the qualifying conditions e.g pre registered, played under qualifying rules on a measured course ect. If more than eight cards are submitted on a particular day the the PCC comes into operation. Is this correct? However if this system results in a lot more cards being entered how do we keep on top of it all. As a volunteer I don't want to be up there every day checking cards but if we end up with backlogs of three or four days will the handicap indexes not suffer if cards are incorrectly entered? Could we end up with people playing off wrong handicaps?

 

[rulefan]

it's unlikely that WHS will make every single aspect of handicapping "better" than what we have now. There are bound to be drawbacks

Just to pick up this point.
The WHS wasn't designed with the intention of making CONGU (or any other specific system) better. It is primarily about commonality around the world. The initial publicity from the R&A doesn't mention 'better'

The World Handicap System (WHS) aims to bring six different handicap systems together into a single set of Rules for Handicapping, enabling golfers of different abilities to play and compete on a fair and equal basis, no matter how or where they play.
While the six existing handicap systems have generally worked very well locally, on a global basis, their different characteristics have sometimes resulted in inconsistency, with players of the same ability ending up with slightly different handicaps. This has sometimes resulted in unnecessary difficulties and challenges for golfers competing in handicap events or for tournament administrators. A single WHS will pave the way to consistency and portability.

As it happens, IMO they have managed to pick out the best bits of current systems but inevitably that means that some bits are 'strange' or sometimes 'inconvenient' or 'awkward'. I think some here will be aware of the hoohah in the US when, in anticipation of WHS, the USGA declared that in order to 'qualify', casual round scores had to be accompanied. But they'll get over it.

 

[jim8flog]

I am pretty new to all this and one of my concern's is supplementary cards. So far I have never encountered any. My understanding is that a supplementary card can be submitted at any time subject to conforming to the qualifying conditions e.g pre registered, played under qualifying rules on a measured course ect. If more than eight cards are submitted on a particular day the the PCC comes into operation. Is this correct? However if this system results in a lot more cards being entered how do we keep on top of it all. As a volunteer I don't want to be up there every day checking cards but if we end up with backlogs of three or four days will the handicap indexes not suffer if cards are incorrectly entered? Could we end up with people playing off wrong handicaps?

You are correct in that 8 will invoke a PCC.

When it comes to timings it is a subject I brought up at the workshop and the response I got was that timing was not important. The point I brought up was we sometimes have a computer failure mid comp at a weekend and not all scores are entered on the PSI therefore what happens about the daily PCC. The answer was that the scores entered before the computer failure would still be 'put up' by the system for the PCC calculation and the scores entered on Monday would be put up for the Monday calculation.

We also will have supplementary scores played Friday to Sunday which with our current system will not be entered on to the PSI until Monday earliest.

We are looking at IG system which will allow players to input their own SSs but what we noticed straight away that it appears to be only possible to do this via a mobile phone using the App.

 

[rulefan]

If more than eight cards are submitted on a particular day the the PCC comes into operation. Is this correct? However if this system results in a lot more cards being entered how do we keep on top of it all. As a volunteer I don't want to be up there every day checking cards but if we end up with backlogs of three or four days will the handicap indexes not suffer if cards are incorrectly entered? Could we end up with people playing off wrong handicaps?

The eight applies to all type of rounds played by anyone on the day. I doubt that you will often see 8 general play scores returned in one day.
Do you currently check all supplementary cards before they are entered? Do you currently check all competition cards before they are entered? If the answers are different, why?

 

[rulefan]

We are looking at IG system which will allow players to input their own SSs but what we noticed straight away that it appears to be only possible to do this via a mobile phone using the App.

I think (really I mean am sure) IG will change their PC front end. I know the other major ISVs are doing that.

 

[Swango1980]

Just to pick up this point.
The WHS wasn't designed with the intention of making CONGU (or any other specific system) better. It is primarily about commonality around the world. The initial publicity from the R&A doesn't mention 'better'

The World Handicap System (WHS) aims to bring six different handicap systems together into a single set of Rules for Handicapping, enabling golfers of different abilities to play and compete on a fair and equal basis, no matter how or where they play.
While the six existing handicap systems have generally worked very well locally, on a global basis, their different characteristics have sometimes resulted in inconsistency, with players of the same ability ending up with slightly different handicaps. This has sometimes resulted in unnecessary difficulties and challenges for golfers competing in handicap events or for tournament administrators. A single WHS will pave the way to consistency and portability.

As it happens, IMO they have managed to pick out the best bits of current systems but inevitably that means that some bits are 'strange' or sometimes 'inconvenient' or 'awkward'. I think some here will be aware of the hoohah in the US when, in anticipation of WHS, the USGA declared that in order to 'qualify', casual round scores had to be accompanied. But they'll get over it.

Agreed, I'm not saying that we are necessarily being told that everything will be better, more that naturally the positive elements to it will be highlighted much more often, and the potential drawbacks may therefore be unexpected. It was more to do with the perception of golfers in general more than anything else. I've no doubt that within the authorities themselves, I'm sure individuals have debated as to what the "best bits" are, and I'm sure compromise was required to come up with a final result.

 

[nickjdavis]

You are correct in that 8 will invoke a PCC.

When it comes to timings it is a subject I brought up at the workshop and the response I got was that timing was not important. The point I brought up was we sometimes have a computer failure mid comp at a weekend and not all scores are entered on the PSI therefore what happens about the daily PCC. The answer was that the scores entered before the computer failure would still be 'put up' by the system for the PCC calculation and the scores entered on Monday would be put up for the Monday calculation.

.

This is the sort of stuff that defies logic and is beyond my comprehension.

How on Earth can scores made on, say, a Sunday be included for the PCC calculation for a Monday...there is just no logic to this. What happens if Sunday's weather was raging storm Dennis and Monday's saw a gentle zephyr wafting across a sun blessed links?

By all means have the "late" cards adjusted by whatever the PCC was for the day they were played on (even though they cannot be retrospectively used to calculate the PCC for that day), but to have them contribute to the PCC for a different day is just daft.

 

[Swango1980]

You are correct in that 8 will invoke a PCC.

When it comes to timings it is a subject I brought up at the workshop and the response I got was that timing was not important. The point I brought up was we sometimes have a computer failure mid comp at a weekend and not all scores are entered on the PSI therefore what happens about the daily PCC. The answer was that the scores entered before the computer failure would still be 'put up' by the system for the PCC calculation and the scores entered on Monday would be put up for the Monday calculation.

We also will have supplementary scores played Friday to Sunday which with our current system will not be entered on to the PSI until Monday earliest.

We are looking at IG system which will allow players to input their own SSs but what we noticed straight away that it appears to be only possible to do this via a mobile phone using the App.

The bit I highlighted causes a little concern. For example, what if Sunday the weather conditions were absolutely horrific, and then on Monday it was a beautiful day (or vice versa) with different pin positions. Would seem a bit unfair to use Sunday's scores in Monday's PCC calculation?

 

[Swango1980]

The eight applies to all type of rounds played by anyone on the day. I doubt that you will often see 8 general play scores returned in one day.
Do you currently check all supplementary cards before they are entered? Do you currently check all competition cards before they are entered? If the answers are different, why?

In answers to those, yes.

With supplementary cards, I enter them as handicap secretary. But, if the player enters them, I believe this does nothing to their handicap until the handicap secretary verifies the score on Club V1. In terms of competitions, nothing happens to their handicap or CSS until the competition is closed. Scores are checked before this is done. Even if there was an error, the competition can simply be reopen, score adjusted, and everything, including CSS is recalculated accordingly.

 

[rulefan]

This is the sort of stuff that defies logic and is beyond my comprehension.

How on Earth can scores made on, say, a Sunday be included for the PCC calculation for a Monday...there is just no logic to this. What happens if Sunday's weather was raging storm Dennis and Monday's saw a gentle zephyr wafting across a sun blessed links?

By all means have the "late" cards adjusted by whatever the PCC was for the day they were played on (even though they cannot be retrospectively used to calculate the PCC for that day), but to have them contribute to the PCC for a different day is just daft.

I don't think jim8flog is correct. The information given to him is wrong.
The late entry scores will be adjusted by the PCC for the day played. They will not affect the PCC for the day of entry

 

[nickjdavis]

I don't think jim8flog is correct.
The late entry scores will be adjusted by the PCC for the day played. They will not affect the PCC for the day of entry

But the point is....it's not jim8flog who is wrong.

It is the people doing the presentation who provided that answer to him, who are wrong....and thats the stuff that worries me....the people on high who present the information dont know the answers.

 

[bobmac]

Thank goodness, a new simple, better, straight forward, universal h/cap system that will be easy to implement and everyone will understand from day one...........................
.............no-one ever said.

 

[rulefan]

It is the people doing the presentation who provided that answer to him, who are wrong....and thats the stuff that worries me....the people on high who present the information dont know the answers.

I agree. It's not necessarily their fault. The dissemination of information has been poor. IMO there have been some major problems.
Primarily, EG is under resourced for such a major information roll out. The initial phase was started too soon and the presentations were not tested by people experienced in the field.
Fortunately, there should be time to correct and amplify things before proper presentations are made to club members and the system kicks in.
I think there is also an issue with the expectations of the workshop designers and many attendees. In parts there was too much detail and in others too little. I felt that attendees were expecting to go back to their clubs and pass on what they had been told. But much of what we had to present was not relevant to the average member and possibly not properly understood by the attendee. eg the details on soft and hard caps.
Hopefully the information and presentation packs that club officials are scheduled to get will be pitched at members and not administrators. And the in the meantime, hopefully further clear information will be issued retrospectively to workshop attendees. We have had a few bits and pieces so far but there doesn't seem to be a coordinated process.
However, I think it fair to add that CONGU 's implementing late may be an an advantage. The CONGU technical committee are still meeting and looking at some of the fine tuning options available in the light of other authorities' experiences having implemented already and queries from experienced handicap administrators.

 

[rulefan]

Thank goodness, a new simple, better, straight forward, universal h/cap system that will be easy to implement and everyone will understand from day one...........................
.............no-one ever said.

And no one ever claimed.

But who really understands how CSS and cat to cat adjustments work?

 

[Swango1980]

And no one ever claimed.

But who really understands how CSS and cat to cat adjustments work?

I agree that no one really knows hows CSS is calculated. Although, you can cancel that out with the PCC calculation in WHS. I think everything else in the current system is either easily understood, or at the least fairly easy for a handicap secretary to explain. A lot of potential issues discussed on this thread would not really be an issue, or so much of an issue, in the current system. There are other things as well, such as:

In the current system, a player will generally know that, if they have a bad round they'll go up 0.1 (and a handicap secretary can explain what score this would occur at, or why it didn't go up 0.1 if it happened to be reductions only). If they get a good score, it can be explained to them why their handicap went down by a certain amount by simply comparing their score to CSS and knowing their category. A golfer with reasonable knowledge will easily be able to predict what will happen to their handicap regardless of score, and subject to the final CSS. However, with WHS, this won't really be possible. Yes, you can explain that it is the best 8 scores out of 20, averaged. But, without knowing all 20 scores, you wouldn't be able to speculate any change in handicap really. And, players will be going out blind, in the sense that regardless of how they are playing, they won't really know what will happen to their handicap until it is changed at midnight. Unless the technology is updated, for example, to indicate to a player what the potential outcomes to their handicap may be for a range of scores in their next round? Although, you'd still be relying on technology for this.

The concern overall is essentially, not what is claimed, but how golfers in general will react. Yes, there will be weaknesses or difficulties. But, if general golfers get the impression from November 2020 that they are confused by certain elements, they are obviously going to compare it to what we have now, and it could potentially result in a lot of frustration if they are really turned off by it and questioning why on earth it was brought in at all. I'm trying to think of every possible negative aspect that I can, so that when and if anyone brings up the same topic after November 2020 at my club, I might actually have some sort of positive spin to put on it.