World Handicap System (WHS)

[Deleted member 3432]

It also seems to think Askernish is in East Lothian

 

[rulefan]

No need to wait they can all be found here http://ncrdb.usga.org/

The rating information relating to all clubs has not yet been forward to this site by the national authorities.
The ladies' tees are already on because their tees have been rated to the USGA method for over 10 years.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Why would there be any argument? It's not a competition and the course ratings are probably as objective as it's possible to be. As far as I know, the vast majority of courses have already been rated with only a few left to be done and they will be given a provisional rating based on the data already available for them.

To be fair this was always the plan. Rating is the responsibilites of the county and some have done more than others. A provisional rating was always going to be used for those not done so the new handicap indexes could be calculated prior to November start.

Suspect there will still be some as when normality returns (or what will equate to it) there will be a glut for England Golf to process.

 

[rulefan]

To be fair this was always the plan. Rating is the responsibilites of the county and some have done more than others. A provisional rating was always going to be used for those not done so the new handicap indexes could be calculated prior to November start.

Suspect there will still be some as when normality returns (or what will equate to it) there will be a glut for England Golf to process.

I understand that here are 80/90% done but varies by county.

 

[rulefan]

Strange. I’m taking it directly from the Swedish golf associations site where it says:

No pre-registration is needed.
You do not need to advise or pre-register a round for handicap purposes. As long as you play within the rules of golf you can simply register your round on “your golf” once finished.

“Your golf” is, I believe, the National golf identity account.

Thanks for the information.

Yes, I can confirm that Sweden has has gone for the USGA approach (ie no pre-declaration). This is different to the old EGA condition.
It is not clear if this is an EGA change or if Sweden has gone UDI, as it seems that the EGA has not published a WHS manual yet.
Although CONGU has not formally published yet, the draft maintains the Supplementary Score ethos.

Apparently Golfförbundet can be translated as Association or Federation, which threw me for a bit.

 

[NearHull]

Can't work this out at all. Had a look at my own club's slope which is 136 off the Blue tees and 134 off White.

Front 9 is 129 off both Blue and White. Back 9 is 142 Blue and 137 White.

Front 9 is by far the harder 9 on about 360 days of the year.

System is either very flawed or whoever rated the course doesn't play golf

I have assisted in rating courses though I have not undertaken any formal training course but I do think that the measuring system is so number driven that a non golfer could Just about carry out the rating

 

[rosecott]

Can't work this out at all. Had a look at my own club's slope which is 136 off the Blue tees and 134 off White.

Front 9 is 129 off both Blue and White. Back 9 is 142 Blue and 137 White.

Front 9 is by far the harder 9 on about 360 days of the year.

System is either very flawed or whoever rated the course doesn't play golf

They do play golf bu the assessment is meant to be predominantly objective.

 

[doublebogey7]

Are

The rating information relating to all clubs has not yet been forward to this site by the national authorities.
The ladies' tees are already on because their tees have been rated to the USGA method for over 10 years.

Are you sure, it looks like they've been loaded for my County Union.

 

[rulefan]

Are
Are you sure, it looks like they've been loaded for my County Union.

I did say that not all data has been forwarded (loaded). That means some has.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

They do play golf bu the assessment is meant to be predominantly objective.

Criteria they use to come up with the numbers is flawed then.

 

[rulefan]

Can't work this out at all. Had a look at my own club's slope which is 136 off the Blue tees and 134 off White.

Front 9 is 129 off both Blue and White. Back 9 is 142 Blue and 137 White.

Front 9 is by far the harder 9 on about 360 days of the year.

System is either very flawed or whoever rated the course doesn't play golf

Or you don't really understand the system.

Slope doesn't tell you very much without knowing the Course Rating.
All it does tell you is the relative difficulty between a scratch and bogey player.

And I can assure you that course raters are fully trained and experienced golfers. However, as said earlier, the process is objective not subjective. And has been tried and tested over many years all round the world except in England (by the men).

 

[NearHull]

Criteria they use to come up with the numbers is flawed then.

I assume you are referring to Silloth. In my very limited knowledge the playing distance of a course creates the largest impact to the rating. I note that your back nine is greater, ie 10% longer than the front nine, which may well account for the differences you have seen.

 

[rulefan]

I assume you are referring to Silloth. In my very limited knowledge the playing distance of a course creates the largest impact to the rating. I note that your back nine is greater, ie 10% longer than the front nine, which may well account for the differences you have seen.

Good point. However, although greater length certainly increases the Course Rating, it may have a different (lesser or greater) effect on Slope.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Slope doesn't tell you very much without knowing the Course Rating.
All it does tell you is the relative difficulty between a scratch and bogey player.

And I can assure you that course raters are fully trained and experienced golfers. However, as said earlier, the process is objective not subjective.

Course rating is 72.6 Blue (35.3 front,37.3 back) and 71.8 White (34.9 front and 36.9 back)

 

[Griffsters]

I'm really hoping at some point this year there will be a way of submitting scores so I an get some recent rounds in that count towards my initial WHS index. I'm looking forward to it, i'd love to see the development of apps that allow online scoring from HDiD / Club V2 etc, some form of digital verification of scores by playing partner

I was going through it last night and by my working out (could be wrong!) my handicap of 14.5 will change to 13.3 Handicap Index under the new way of working.

 

[rulefan]

Course rating is 72.6 Blue (35.3 front,37.3 back) and 71.8 White (34.9 front and 36.9 back)

That suggests that the length has an influence.

Front 9 is by far the harder 9 on about 360 days of the year.

Have you used your club software to check actual playing difficulty of each hole or is it how players in general feel?
Incidentally, to what extent do you believe the wind has an effect on each half?

PS what were your old SSS values?

 

[Deleted member 3432]

I assume you are referring to Silloth. In my very limited knowledge the playing distance of a course creates the largest impact to the rating. I note that your back nine is greater, ie 10% longer than the front nine, which may well account for the differences you have seen.

The longer 9 is the easier 9, prevailing wind at your back for 8 holes as opposed to in your face for 8 holes on the front 9.

Back 9 may look longer on the card but front 9 plays longer day in day out.

 

[rulefan]

I'm really hoping at some point this year there will be a way of submitting scores so I an get some recent rounds in that count towards my initial WHS index. I'm looking forward to it, i'd love to see the development of apps that allow online scoring from HDiD / Club V2 etc, some form of digital verification of scores by playing partner

I was going through it last night and by my working out (could be wrong!) my handicap of 14.5 will change to 13.3 Handicap Index under the new way of working.

Within the normal expectations

 

[Deleted member 3432]

That suggests that the length has an influence.


Have you used your club software to check actual playing difficulty of each hole or is it how players in general feel?
Incidentally, to what extent do you believe the wind has an effect on each half?

PS what were your old SSS values?

Old sss were 73 and 72.

Hardest hole is usually 13th, followed by 5th and 7th.

Easiest holes are usually 14th and 17th.

Anyone who plays there regularly will say the front 9 is hardest.

Wind I reckon is worth 2 shots on either 9. For example anytime I have shot level par or better I have been a couple over par at the turn and 2 or 3 under par coming home.

Don't get me wrong the back 9 is brutal when played into the wind but that is only a handful of days a year.

I reckon if I wanted to get to scratch I would just put cards in from playing a 9 holer on the back 9. Just a bit of a yomp to get to the 10th tee however.

 

[NearHull]

Old sss were 73 and 72.

Hardest hole is usually 13th, followed by 5th and 7th.

Easiest holes are usually 14th and 17th.

Anyone who plays there regularly will say the front 9 is hardest.

Wind I reckon is worth 2 shots on either 9. For example anytime I have shot level par or better I have been a couple over par at the turn and 2 or 3 under par coming home.

Don't get me wrong the back 9 is brutal when played into the wind but that is only a handful of days a year.

I reckon if I wanted to get to scratch I would just put cards in from playing a 9 holer on the back 9. Just a bit of a yomp to get to the 10th tee however.

I don’t believe that prevalent wind is ever taken into account for rating.

I must pull out of the discussion now as I really am at the limit of my knowledge and any more comments would merely be opinion. (also going out for my daily walk)