World Handicap System (WHS)

[Mozza14]

that means
the initial calculation will have more than one decimal place which is rounded to the first decimal place the figure is then rounded to the nearest whole number with 0.5 going up.

Sorry but I cant see that it says anything about rounding up to a whole number. It specifically states to a tenth. In nearly all cases the differential using the calculation 113/Slope rating will produce a string of decimal points. (113 being the exception)

 

[Wilson]

The blame game has already started...

England Golf sent out an email a few days ago to all clubs explaining the timeline over the next month for migration and key dates such as...

Current ISV software would push user data to the WHS Dot Golf Website on 5th October
The website would be opened up to Golf clubs to review member data from 12th October
Golfers will be able to access their data and see their predicted handicaps from the 19th October
Launch on the 2nd November

The email states that all ISVs will link to the platform and are currently in testing phase and will be issued with accreditation when they meet the terms of the license. It then goes on to say that some ISV's have not met deadlines, including those around parallel running of the score data.

I've seen emails from an ISV in response that state that...

Accreditation has not even been applied for yet because they are waiting for problems with the DotGolf website to be addresses and that interfaces to the DotGolf site are continually changing.

In response to the "not met deadlines" accusation from EG they say that they have been having discussions about the technical barriers that are inherent in the WHS system design that are hindering the transmission of data to the WHS. EG have declined to provide additional facilities that would have mitigated many of these technical barriers that they have created.

Apparently the ISV email clarifies that the three unions England, Wales and Ireland have decided to cancel the plans to operate a period of parallel running of the CONGU and WHS systems.

They also criticise EG for telling clubs to speak directly to your ISV in order to ensure the relevant user data is ready for the 5th October when they have already discussed their software release plans with EG and believed that EG accepted that this particular ISV's software would be released on 2nd November, and that they have not been advised by EG that they need to work to any date other than 2nd November.

Now, my own take on the situation is that, reading between the lines of the ISV's email is that they have had some issues with working with EG and DotGolf and are somewhat miffed at the support (or perceived lack of support) they have received in resolving these issues and have taken a somewhat negative response to EG's recent email (possibly ignoring the fact that is was a generic email covering all ISV's...some of whom will be able to make the dates quoted above). On EG's side I can see a desire to push responsibility towards the ISV's for not delivering.

It seems throughout this entire process the golfing authorities have made various assumptions about the way golf clubs operate their handicapping software and how the software vendors will be able to operate during the implementation period. Previous e-mails received over the past 12-18 months have revealed a clear "gap" between the ISV and England Golfs thoughts/view/understanding as to "how things will work"...the theme of EG needing to be more specific and clear about the deliverables was a recurring one.

As ever, the truth will be somewhere in the middle.

What is astounding is that, having had well over two years to prepare for this already postponed date, at this late stage there is bickering between the various parties and the likelihood is that for many clubs a solution will be released on the day we are supposed to go live, with no opportunities for real world live testing and validation of the system. Its all very well doing testing in the back ground but the true test will come when 1900 odd golf clubs try to use the system at the same time....no matter how well a system is testing under controlled "lab conditions" it will only take a bit of "load testing" by real world users to highlight the issues that will almost certainly be inherent in the solution on day 1.

I predict a riot.

Sounds like some of the integration projects I've worked on!

 

[Mozza14]

What I find a pity is that the slides use for the workshops can no longer be accessed.

They showed good examples of a players record and how it is affected.

Anybody still got them?

If you go to Mapperley Golf Club they have some England Golf slides two of which cover the transition from CONGU to WHS. They set out the conversion process. They talk about a CSS adjustment but clearly say that Course Rating will be used and compared to the adjusted gross score and any CSS adjustments.

Maybe it was subsequently easier to use CSS as that allowed the differential in the CONGU Handicap Record to be used (which is after CSS).

This is why I was querying it but I haven't seen anything definitive officially changing the approach.

 

[HampshireHog]

Does anyone know whether the exceptional round adjustments will be applied to the initial HI’s calculated on Nov 2nd. Could take me down to single figures.?

 

[rulefan]

Does anyone know whether the exceptional round adjustments will be applied to the initial HI’s calculated on Nov 2nd. Could take me down to single figures.?

My understanding is that each historical round is handled one at a time as if the player was posting them manually after a round. All WHS processes will be followed as each score is processed.

 

[jim8flog]

Sorry but I cant see that it says anything about rounding up to a whole number. It specifically states to a tenth. In nearly all cases the differential using the calculation 113/Slope rating will produce a string of decimal points. (113 being the exception)

Sorry.
I actually deleted the post virtually as soon as a I posted it. I realised my interpretation was not correct

 

[rulefan]

I read that as one decimal point (nearest tenth) . I assume the .5 refers to the second decimal point.

Thanks for making me read it again. I now agree you are right

 

[Mozza14]

Thanks for making me read it again. I now agree you are right

Thank you. Have you had a look at the slides about transition on the Mapperley Golf club Website and the issue about Course Rating as adjusted by CSS. They were an England Golf publication and if that had changed we would expect to see some sort of documented revision.

Happy to be convinced otherwise but it seems that the original method was logical and easy to calculate. In fact, I have spreadsheets which can do it either way but would be interested to find out what will be done.

On our course, it makes a difference to the outcome albeit small. I think around 0.1 addition to the HI if CSS is used. (Corrected from 0.2 because that included the rounding issue on differentials which we agree no longer exists.)

 

[rulefan]

Thank you. Have you had a look at the slides about transition on the Mapperley Golf club Website and the issue about Course Rating as adjusted by CSS. They were an England Golf publication and if that had changed we would expect to see some sort of documented revision.

Happy to be convinced otherwise but it seems that the original method was logical and easy to calculate. In fact, I have spreadsheets which can do it either way but would be interested to find out what will be done.

On our course, it makes a difference to the outcome albeit small. I think around 0.1 addition to the HI if CSS is used. (Corrected from 0.2 because that included the rounding issue on differentials which we agree no longer exists.)

I didn't think I suggested that CSS wasn't used.

 

[Mozza14]

I didn't think I suggested that CSS wasn't used.

Agreed.

In Post 1045 you advised that CSS was being used in the conversion process rather than Course Rating. My query was that was at odds with the England Golf presentation slides.

You must have some information on which to base your statement. I was simply asking if that was a document or something we could see as I had been relying on England Golf's own previous advice which clearly indicated that Course Rating would be used.

 

[JollyRedDevil]

Apologies if this has already been covered but as this is a long thread, it would take me long time to find the answer.
I currently play off 22. I've been trough my last 20 competitions and selected the best eight. When the gross difference is averaged out it comes to 24.6 (I know I've been play awful recently).
My question is, come 2nd of November with things as stand, does my HC jump to 24.6 or is there a cap on the amount of increase?

 

[rulefan]

Apologies if this has already been covered but as this is a long thread, it would take me long time to find the answer.
I currently play off 22. I've been trough my last 20 competitions and selected the best eight. When the gross difference is averaged out it comes to 24.6 (I know I've been play awful recently).
My question is, come 2nd of November with things as stand, does my HC jump to 24.6 or is there a cap on the amount of increase?

Did you remember to de-slope your gross difference? 22 to 24.6 does seem a large jump even allowing for the fact you know you've been playing awful recently.
Take each of the 8 gross and multiply by (113/slope) and average them

 

[JollyRedDevil]

Did you remember to de-slope your gross difference? 22 to 24.6 does seem a large jump even allowing for the fact you know you've been playing awful recently.
Take each of the 8 gross and multiply by (113/slope) and average them

Will do thanks.

 

[brfcfan]

A question that will stymie them is:

CONGU will calculate the Course Handicap as
CH = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating / 113)
Whilst the rest of the world (Europe, US, Canada, Australia, South Africa ...) will use
CH = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating / 113) + (Course Rating - Par)
Why ?

I haven't been able to get a comprehensible answer yet.

Hi RF, are you sure the above is correct? All the info I have seen with England Golf has the UK working it out using your second calculation?

Apologies if this is an out of date post but can you clarify?

 

[Mozza14]

To clear up the confusion, I have asked England Golf the following question:

Would you confirm that the Course Ratings are being used in the transitional software to create the new Handicap Record and the first Handicap Index.

The reply is :

Can I refer you to rule 5 on page 46 of the WHS rules of handicapping so you can see the differential calculation used and that course rating values are used.

 

[rulefan]

To clear up the confusion, I have asked England Golf the following question:

Would you confirm that the Course Ratings are being used in the transitional software to create the new Handicap Record and the first Handicap Index.

The reply is :

Can I refer you to rule 5 on page 46 of the WHS rules of handicapping so you can see the differential calculation used and that course rating values are used.

5.1a on page 46 makes no mention of the transitional software.
But it does mention the PCC adjustment.

 

[Mozza14]

5.1a on page 46 makes no mention of the transitional software.
But it does mention the PCC adjustment.

View attachment 32822

I take the England Golf response to mean that the conversion process will generally follow the position of the ongoing system. The reply makes it clear that Course Ratings will be used. The PCC adjustment is broadly the equivalent of the SSS-CSS adjustment.

The Differential described is very much the same as in the early England golf slides describing the conversion so I can see no reason why they shouldn't use Course Ratings. Only in the absence of them might they revert to the CSS alone.

 

[rulefan]

I take the England Golf response to mean that the conversion process will generally follow the position of the ongoing system. The ongoing system uses PCC
The reply makes it clear that Course Ratings will be used.

The PCC adjustment is broadly the equivalent of the SSS-CSS adjustment. So why wouldn't the difference between SSS & CSS be used in lieu of PCC?

The Differential described is very much the same as in the early England golf slides describing the conversion so I can see no reason why they shouldn't use Course Ratings. Only in the absence of them (what are 'them', the slides? Wasn't PCC a latecomer to the table?) might they revert to the CSS alone.

 

[Mozza14]

Sorry what is PSS?

It will be used in lieu of PCC. I haven't said any different. I have been focussing on whether the Course Rating was to be used in the transition.

'them' . I meant a course rating for a particular tee.

I am not sure of the introduction date of PCC.

 

[rulefan]

Sorry what is PSS?

It will be used in lieu of PCC. I haven't said any different. I have been focussing on whether the Course Rating was to be used in the transition.

'them' . I meant a course rating for a particular tee.

I am not sure of the introduction date of PCC.

PSS should have been PCC (now corrected)

Perhaps we have been at cross purposes. When you say CR (ie SSS in old money) will be used do you mean without an adjustment for the difference between CSS and SSS?
I was told that (CSS-SSS) would be used also in place of a PCC adjustment.

I am told that any tees not rated at Nov 2nd will use the current SSS and an 'average' Slope of 125 (I think) would be allocated for the purpose of the transition.

PCC will be used for all scores submitted from day 1.