World Handicap System (WHS)

[Swango1980]

The US simply enter the total gross or hole by hole gross.

Yes, but they still have to enter a handicap under the Rules, which is what I believe Duncan was getting at. And the question was, do they enter Index, Course or Playing?

 

[jim8flog]

Please tell me how the number of strokes received can be determined by looking at a card/label with only the Handicap Index on it.
.

I essence in the same way that a player calculates the strokes allowed on a card under the current handicap system.

The player uses the charts to get to the course handicap and then mental arithmetic or a calculator to get to playing handicap. I bet most cards will still say strokes allowed.

I think that cards should have 3 boxes on them to make it clear.

 

[Swango1980]

Indeed, but further what has been the requirement been in Countries that have for years now been using the slope system for handicapping.
Also the argument that it needs to be playing handicap doesn't stand as there is no requirement for Net Scores to be recorded on cards, so players do not need to know either there playing or competition handicaps. No calculation is ever needed, just need to record handicap and gross score on each hole.

Its clearly handicap index for me.

I think the issue is, I can understand why some think Index is clear. Others think Playing is clear. So, the guidance needs to ultimately make it clear. Otherwise, we'll have some clubs deciding it is Index, others deciding it is Playing. Which might be OK at those clubs as members get used to it, except when those members go to another course and then get a DQ because their competition secretary does something differently and they didn't expect it.

 

[rulefan]

I have now received clarification from the powers that be.
England Golf will specify that the Handicap Index and Course Handicap must be on the card.
The HI will be required in order to 'prove' how the CH has been determined if necessary.
The CH is required by the RoG
As Playing Handicap is not used in the handicap system process it will not be required but may be added at the club's discretion. It is only used for the determination of competition results.
Other CONGU authorities have not yet confirmed but are expected to make the same decision.
Non-CONGU countries may or may not have different requirements

 

[Yorkshire Hacker]

Oh dear! Three boxes on the card then? H.I., C.H., and actual playing handicap. And this is meant to encourage new players to our wonderful game is it? I think not.

 

[rulefan]

Oh dear! Three boxes on the card then? H.I., C.H., and actual playing handicap. And this is meant to encourage new players to our wonderful game is it? I think not.

Only two required but two are required now if playing BB.
But surely they will be printed for the players. If not, they are all calculated and displayed when entering.
If clubs can't afford a few hundred pounds for modern kit now, they won't be around in a couple of years

Do you really believe that adding a couple of items to a card when they will be adding another 20 later, will stop people playing golf?

 

[ger147]

I have now received clarification from the powers that be.
England Golf will specify that the Handicap Index and Course Handicap must be on the card.
The HI will be required in order to 'prove' how the CH has been determined if necessary.
The CH is required by the RoG
As Playing Handicap is not used in the handicap system process it will not be required but may be added at the club's discretion. It is only used for the determination of competition results.
Other CONGU authorities have not yet confirmed but are expected to make the same decision.
Non-CONGU countries may or may not have different requirements

Can I just check, does the new WHS Playing Handicap only apply in matchplay scenarios?

In individual medal/stableford competitions, the equivalent of today's CONGU Playing handicap is Course handicap?

 

[Swango1980]

Can I just check, does the new WHS Playing Handicap only apply in matchplay scenarios?

In individual medal/stableford competitions, the equivalent of today's CONGU Playing handicap is Course handicap?

No, WHS handicap and CONGU handicap are not really equivalent at all anyway.

In individual medal and stableford comps, Playing Handicap will be 95% of Course Handicap

 

[ger147]

Seems a bit daft that of the 3 numbers that are a part of your handicap (Handicap Index, Course Handicap and Playing Handicap), the only one you don't write on your card is the actual number you deduct from your gross score to get your net score.

And assuming your playing handicap is rounded to a whole number, that means the calculation is rounded to a whole number twice during the calculation. Seems a bit pointless to round Course Handicap if you then have to apply a % allowance based on the format of play and then round that number to a whole number. I'm guessing there are plenty of numbers and allowance combos that would give you a different answer with or without rounding applied to the Course Handicap.

It doesn't feel terribly well thought out with the ordinary handicap golfer in mind.

 

[Swango1980]

Seems a bit daft that of the 3 numbers that are a part of your handicap (Handicap Index, Course Handicap and Playing Handicap), the only one you don't write on your card is the actual number you deduct from your gross score to get your net score.

And assuming your playing handicap is rounded to a whole number, that means the calculation is rounded to a whole number twice during the calculation. Seems a bit pointless to round Course Handicap if you then have to apply a % allowance based on the format of play and then round that number to a whole number. I'm guessing there are plenty of numbers and allowance combos that would give you a different answer with or without rounding applied to the Course Handicap.

It doesn't feel terribly well thought out with the ordinary handicap golfer in mind.

Perhaps it was considered the right time to implement it, and in the way that it will work, because technology is now at a level that it will basically do everything for the Average Joe. They can almost not worry about what is going on, and just treat the technology as a magic "black box" that will get them the answer they need.

Had there been a desire to do this 20-30 years ago, it would be interesting to see if it would have taken a similar format, or would it have been simplified in any areas knowing that Average Joe had to do a lot of this for themselves (not to mention what Committees would require to do to keep on top of handicaps, I'm sure 20-30 years ago it was more involved than it is now)

 

[ger147]

Perhaps it was considered the right time to implement it, and in the way that it will work, because technology is now at a level that it will basically do everything for the Average Joe. They can almost not worry about what is going on, and just treat the technology as a magic "black box" that will get them the answer they need.

Had there been a desire to do this 20-30 years ago, it would be interesting to see if it would have taken a similar format, or would it have been simplified in any areas knowing that Average Joe had to do a lot of this for themselves (not to mention what Committees would require to do to keep on top of handicaps, I'm sure 20-30 years ago it was more involved than it is now)

My issue with that response is I (the golfer) am still responsible for ensuring the correct handicap information is entered on my card. If I don't understand how the system works how will I be able to spot any errors that may crop up from time to time. Blindly trusting "that's what the computer says" is not an adequate approach IMO.

 

[Swango1980]

My issue with that response is I (the golfer) am still responsible for ensuring the correct handicap information is entered on my card. If I don't understand how the system works how will I be able to spot any errors that may crop up from time to time. Blindly trusting "that's what the computer says" is not an adequate approach IMO.

I agree. I'm just trying to figure out what the counter argument may be.

Ultimately, the counter argument is, I guess, that at no point now or under WHS has the player ever been asked to work out their score. All they need to do, score wise, is ensure each hole has the correct gross score. So, you'd need to go through all 18 holes and make sure this is right.

Of course, I know players do not usually do this. They simply work out their final score (whether it is their nett score in medal or points in stableford), and then if their marker agrees, they sign card and submit. It is the "simple" way, and often quicker way, to check. However, the weakness of this is that, if player and marker ended up getting the right final score, but one or both made mistakes in getting there, then a player would still get a DQ if a hole score was too low. Nearly happened to me once. My marker agreed my final score, and I nearly submitted card. However, I noticed he gave me a 3 on the last rather than a 2, but on an earlier hole gave me a 4 when I actually got a 5. So, he got the correct final score, but I would have got a DQ had the card been submitted due to a 4 rather than 5 being recorded (although, in practical terms, it is difficult to see how anybody would ever really spot that error, as player, marker or Committee will rarely go in and check each individual score and compare to markers card. If the final score is correct, it would rarely highlight an issue, I only noticed because I wanted my 2's money and realised he'd not written it down).

So, in terms of checking you score, in practical terms I think it will simply have to be that, you focus on your gross scores and make sure all 18 are correct. If you are able to know your playing handicap, or the committee give it to you, then you should still be able to check your scores as you do now

 

[ger147]

I agree. I'm just trying to figure out what the counter argument may be.

Ultimately, the counter argument is, I guess, that at no point now or under WHS has the player ever been asked to work out their score. All they need to do, score wise, is ensure each hole has the correct gross score. So, you'd need to go through all 18 holes and make sure this is right.

Of course, I know players do not usually do this. They simply work out their final score (whether it is their nett score in medal or points in stableford), and then if their marker agrees, they sign card and submit. It is the "simple" way, and often quicker way, to check. However, the weakness of this is that, if player and marker ended up getting the right final score, but one or both made mistakes in getting there, then a player would still get a DQ if a hole score was too low. Nearly happened to me once. My marker agreed my final score, and I nearly submitted card. However, I noticed he gave me a 3 on the last rather than a 2, but on an earlier hole gave me a 4 when I actually got a 5. So, he got the correct final score, but I would have got a DQ had the card been submitted due to a 4 rather than 5 being recorded (although, in practical terms, it is difficult to see how anybody would ever really spot that error, as player, marker or Committee will rarely go in and check each individual score and compare to markers card. If the final score is correct, it would rarely highlight an issue, I only noticed because I wanted my 2's money and realised he'd not written it down).

So, in terms of checking you score, in practical terms I think it will simply have to be that, you focus on your gross scores and make sure all 18 are correct. If you are able to know your playing handicap, or the committee give it to you, then you should still be able to check your scores as you do now

You missing the point - I (the golfer) am responsible for ensuring the correct handicap information is on my card. If the computer, for whatever reason on a given day gives me incorrect information which I then put on my card, it's MY fault and I can be DQ'd. My gross score is irrelevant, that's a red herring. It doesn't matter what I score on any hole, if the handicap information on my card is wrong I the player am responsible.

 

[Swango1980]

You missing the point - I (the golfer) am responsible for ensuring the correct handicap information is on my card. If the computer, for whatever reason on a given day gives me incorrect information which I then put on my card, it's MY fault and I can be DQ'd. My gross score is irrelevant, that's a red herring. It doesn't matter what I score on any hole, if the handicap information on my card is wrong I the player am responsible.

You'll need the computer to get your Index anyway (just like you probably do now to get your CONGU handicap, even though you probably begin to remember what it is when you know it hasn't changed in a while). Once you have your Index, you can use the chart at the club to get your course handicap.

What other incorrect information could the computer give you?

There may be potential issues. Such as, if the computer wasn't working on the morning, and you couldn't get your Index. Maybe you could revert to using an App, but then if you didn't have your phone, no one around you did, or you didn't have a 4g signal, maybe this could also be problematic. So, I'm not sure how seamless technology will be. However, if it is working, I suspect it won't be giving you wrong information.

 

[duncan mackie]

I have now received clarification from the powers that be.
England Golf will specify that the Handicap Index and Course Handicap must be on the card.
The HI will be required in order to 'prove' how the CH has been determined if necessary.
The CH is required by the RoG
As Playing Handicap is not used in the handicap system process it will not be required but may be added at the club's discretion. It is only used for the determination of competition results.
Other CONGU authorities have not yet confirmed but are expected to make the same decision.
Non-CONGU countries may or may not have different requirements

Madness....
so a player who knows his handicap index (looks it up) but makes a mistake in the calculation of his course handicap (which the computer will ignore anyway and correctly use, and calculate, a playing handicap for the stroke play event he was in from its records - and that figure may not be the same) will be DQ if the figure he calculates and puts on his card would have given him an additional stroke that he didn't actually get because the computer knew better....
Anyone believe that this won't bite a few times in practice (with a rather negative impact) ?

 

[duncan mackie]

Once you have your Index, you can use the chart at the club to get your course handicap.

and in the history of man the percentage of errors made in using such simple charts is ?

The number doesn't really matter - I hope we can all agree it's not 0 ?

 

[ger147]

You'll need the computer to get your Index anyway (just like you probably do now to get your CONGU handicap, even though you probably begin to remember what it is when you know it hasn't changed in a while). Once you have your Index, you can use the chart at the club to get your course handicap.

What other incorrect information could the computer give you?

There may be potential issues. Such as, if the computer wasn't working on the morning, and you couldn't get your Index. Maybe you could revert to using an App, but then if you didn't have your phone, no one around you did, or you didn't have a 4g signal, maybe this could also be problematic. So, I'm not sure how seamless technology will be. However, if it is working, I suspect it won't be giving you wrong information.

Banging my head against a wall so will leave it there...

 

[ger147]

Madness....
so a player who knows his handicap index (looks it up) but makes a mistake in the calculation of his course handicap (which the computer will ignore anyway and correctly use, and calculate, a playing handicap for the stroke play event he was in from its records - and that figure may not be the same) will be DQ if the figure he calculates and puts on his card would have given him an additional stroke that he didn't actually get because the computer knew better....
Anyone believe that this won't bite a few times in practice (with a rather negative impact) ?

As I said above, not very well thought out with the ordinary handicap golfer in mind.

 

[Swango1980]

Duncan / Ger

I am actually on your side on this. If you have read through this thread, you will see I have also been unsure exactly what should be used, and have also seen the logic on different peoples opinions.

All I am doing is trying to put myself in the head of the handicapping / rules people to see how they'd look at it. I was also trying to point out, that it looks like we are just going to have to start accepting what the computer tells us. So, if we are to check our scores at the end, we may need to revert back to simply checking every single gross score, if we can't assume we've calculated the correct playing handicap in the first place. I also agree with Duncan, in that it would be a shame to be DQ for getting you Index correct, and misreading your course handicap from a chart. But, as I've said months and months ago, having 3 different handicap numbers rather than the current 1 was always going to be more complicated for the average golfer. This is clearly one reason where this applies. For bringing that up before, I was told I was being over dramatic, and yet here we are!

I've no idea how it will work in practice. I, like you, think there will be a lot of hiccups and negative consequences along the way. If you've ever read my WHS posts on any thread, you might have realised I've always tried to come up with the worst case scenarios (and been criticised for it). So, although I'm still on your side on this, I'm trying to see how it could unfold so that it doesn't become a problem in 2 or 3 years.

 

[ger147]

Duncan / Ger

I am actually on your side on this. If you have read through this thread, you will see I have also been unsure exactly what should be used, and have also seen the logic on different peoples opinions.

All I am doing is trying to put myself in the head of the handicapping / rules people to see how they'd look at it. I was also trying to point out, that it looks like we are just going to have to start accepting what the computer tells us. So, if we are to check our scores at the end, we may need to revert back to simply checking every single gross score, if we can't assume we've calculated the correct playing handicap in the first place. I also agree with Duncan, in that it would be a shame to be DQ for getting you Index correct, and misreading your course handicap from a chart. But, as I've said months and months ago, having 3 different handicap numbers rather than the current 1 was always going to be more complicated for the average golfer. This is clearly one reason where this applies. For bringing that up before, I was told I was being over dramatic, and yet here we are!

I've no idea how it will work in practice. I, like you, think there will be a lot of hiccups and negative consequences along the way. If you've ever read my WHS posts on any thread, you might have realised I've always tried to come up with the worst case scenarios (and been criticised for it). So, although I'm still on your side on this, I'm trying to see how it could unfold so that it doesn't become a problem in 2 or 3 years.

I have been personally on the wrong end of 2 examples where the computer calculated my handicap adjustment incorrectly, one was resolved and one was not. "That's what the computer says" is not a valid approach, sometimes computers can be wrong...

I also work in Systems Development for a living, trusting computers is almost as bad as trusting human beings!!!