World Handicap System (WHS)

[Scott W]

So finally got my full access to WHS data

So I currently have a handicap index showing of 15.2 .......but I think it should be 16.0 (current CONGU h'cap is 17.9)

There are a load of anomalies in the data :-(

1. WHS data has only 10 scores since 1/1/2018 listed where as I have 17 qualifying scores in that time period - the missing ones are random i.e. not all consecutive

2. This of course means that with only 10 scores they have taken average of best 3 rather than best 6 which would be the case with 17 scores

For 4 of the rounds they have included from my old club they have them showing as having been ff the yellows but they were off the whites which means course rating and slope are wrong

So all in all a cracking job they are doing so far .... I cant see this being all corrected in time for go live on Monday

 

[Swango1980]

So finally got my full access to WHS data

So I currently have a handicap index showing of 15.2 .......but I think it should be 16.0 (current CONGU h'cap is 17.9)

There are a load of anomalies in the data :-(

1. WHS data has only 10 scores since 1/1/2018 listed where as I have 17 qualifying scores in that time period - the missing ones are random i.e. not all consecutive

2. This of course means that with only 10 scores they have taken average of best 3 rather than best 6 which would be the case with 17 scores

For 4 of the rounds they have included from my old club they have them showing as having been ff the yellows but they were off the whites which means course rating and slope are wrong

So all in all a cracking job they are doing so far .... I cant see this being all corrected in time for go live on Monday

At least you have access. Our ISV haven't even sent across e-mail addresses yet, so our members cannot register. Looks like a bit of a mess has been made with your record. This is why I think they should have delayed the launch until early next year, and given committees and members a chance to identify these, and give enough time to rectify them.

 

[Scott W]

At least you have access. Our ISV haven't even sent across e-mail addresses yet, so our members cannot register. Looks like a bit of a mess has been made with your record. This is why I think they should have delayed the launch until early next year, and given committees and members a chance to identify these, and give enough time to rectify them.

But they had 2 years to get it sorted....

 

[rosecott]

But they had 2 years to get it sorted....

And, like everywhere else, a little thing called covid-19 appeared and had its effects.

 

[IanMcC]

That is very interesting, rulefan. Im sure there used to be a recommendation that the first and 10th holes were no harder than stroke 8, and preferably around stroke 12.
I dont see that in Appendix E anywhere. Is this still a recommendation? Our first hole at Rhuddlan is quite hard, being the 3rd hardest hole in the historical statistics. It is currently SI 12, but under Appendix E it comes out as SI 4.

This is from the CONGU 2019 Manual:

Appendix G - Handicap Stroke Index
4. None of the first eight strokes should be allocated to the first or the last hole, and at clubs where competitive matches may be started at the 10th hole, at the 9th or 10th holes. This avoids a player receiving an undue advantage on the 19th hole should a match continue to sudden death. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, stroke indices 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be allocated to holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 in such order as shall be considered appropriate.

There is nothing in WHS Rules Of Handicapping book under Appendix E that mentions the above. Does the new RoH booklet override the CONGU 2019 manual for this aspect? They contradict each other somewhat.

 

[Swango1980]

And, like everywhere else, a little thing called covid-19 appeared and had its effects.

Did that realistically stop computer programmers from working? And, even if it did, why rush it out on 2nd November? Just put it back a few months.

 

[Crazyface]

LOts of problems and questions. They seem to completely ignore any rubbish scores and only take into account any half decent ones. Well it seems that way with mine. The wifes been cut 4 shots, based on, from what I can see two scores. My golf mate, who hasn't put ANY scores in this year, coz he didn't want his H/C to go any higher than the 29.4 he was has got his new shiney WHS one now.....36 ! I'm sorry, but OMG did I laugh. Still am actually.

 

[IanM]

Looking at the recorded scores on the new (Welsh) portal, there are lots of scores ignored. Inc two of my best this year. Rumblings suggest that the initial feed might have been a test and a final one will be done on 2nd November. But who knows?

I can see a few groups administering their own handicaps for roll-ups and forgetting all about WHS for some time.

Stop Press: Just walked the dogs, bumped into neighbour doing the same. He's a member at Celtic Manor.... he's gobsmacked that Roman Road has a slope index lower than Llanwern! Expect that they'll get a few extra in their Open this year!

 

[rulefan]

This is from the CONGU 2019 Manual:

Appendix G - Handicap Stroke Index
4. None of the first eight strokes should be allocated to the first or the last hole, and at clubs where competitive matches may be started at the 10th hole, at the 9th or 10th holes. This avoids a player receiving an undue advantage on the 19th hole should a match continue to sudden death. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, stroke indices 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be allocated to holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 in such order as shall be considered appropriate.

There is nothing in WHS Rules Of Handicapping book under Appendix E that mentions the above. Does the new RoH booklet override the CONGU 2019 manual for this aspect? They contradict each other somewhat.

The whole of the WHS Rules of Handicapping supersede the 2019 CONGU Manual.
Therefore Appendix E id the definitive recommendation - not mandate.
Appendix E is on page 100 of the RoH

 

[rulefan]

Looking at the recorded scores on the new (Welsh) portal, there are lots of scores ignored. Inc two of my best this year. Rumblings suggest that the initial feed might have been a test and a final one will be done on 2nd November. But who knows?

I can see a few groups administering their own handicaps for roll-ups and forgetting all about WHS for some time.

Stop Press: Just walked the dogs, bumped into neighbour doing the same. He's a member at Celtic Manor.... he's gobsmacked that Roman Road has a slope index lower than Llanwern! Expect that they'll get a few extra in their Open this year!

What do believe Slope tells you?

However the Slopes at all the Celtic Manor tees are higher than any at Llanwern.
And the Course Ratings at Llanwern are much lower.

 

[nickjdavis]

Did that realistically stop computer programmers from working? And, even if it did, why rush it out on 2nd November? Just put it back a few months.

2 months to Jan 1st would be more than enough....get the database synchronised on Nov 2nd....allow a couple of months of parallel working ( which would allow errors in the database to be corrected, and for committees to address players issues), at a time when the volume of comps is generally much lower, and then turn off Congu with a big celebratory explosion of fireworks on Dec 31st.

 

[IanM]

What do believe Slope tells you?

However the Slopes at all the Celtic Manor tees are higher than any at Llanwern.
And the Course Ratings at Llanwern are much lower.

Not they are not.

I also ignored the Blacks at CM as they are virtually never used - but of course you said any... I looked at the tees both courses use for club comps, course rating indeed 1.7 higher on RR.

Roman Road White 129
Llanwern White 131

http://ncrdb.usga.org/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=17403

The guy I spoke to expressed his surprise at the difference, that's all. I guess you have played both courses and can therefore discuss the criteria on which his surprise is valid or not? Actually, no criteria were ever mentioned.

 

[rosecott]

Did that realistically stop computer programmers from working? And, even if it did, why rush it out on 2nd November? Just put it back a few months.

The England Golf staff were in the same boat as most organisations in terms of furloughing and working from home.

 

[Old Skier]

Not they are not.

I also ignored the Blacks at CM as they are virtually never used - but of course you said any... I looked at the tees both courses use for club comps, course rating indeed 1.7 higher on RR.

Roman Road White 129
Llanwern White 131

http://ncrdb.usga.org/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=17403

The guy I spoke to expressed his surprise at the difference, that's all. I guess you have played both courses and can therefore discuss the criteria on which his surprise is valid or not? Actually, no criteria were ever mentioned.

We have the same here with Saunton East being lower than us and RND

 

[rulefan]

We have the same here with Saunton East being lower than us and RND

Do you really understand what slope means? Without CR it tells you nothing about the relative difficulty of two courses.
Slope only tells you how difficult a specific course is for higher handicappers relative to low handicappers

 

[Swango1980]

The England Golf staff were in the same boat as most organisations in terms of furloughing and working from home.

Which is why delaying WHS for a few months would not have been a bad thing, and understandable to most. Right now, it feels like one big last minute rush, that will cause many headaches next week if there are lots of bugs and confused golfers. I just think it would have been much easier to get to where they are now, turn it on next week, but only so that it runs in parallel to the CONGU system. Keep CONGU handicaps operational for a few more months, allow golfers to see what happens to their WHS Index as they submit more scores, allow Committees to report and help fix any bugs, and then turn in on end of February, just in time for the 2021 season.

 

[Old Skier]

Do you really understand what slope means? Without CR it tells you nothing about the relative difficulty of two courses.
Slope only tells you how difficult a specific course is for higher handicappers relative to low handicappers

And as the majority of players are from the higher handicap doesnt that equate to a higher handicapper at Saunton have a harder chance against a low handicapper whereas it’s the other way round in simplistic terms at RND.

 

[rulefan]

Not they are not.

I also ignored the Blacks at CM as they are virtually never used - but of course you said any... I looked at the tees both courses use for club comps, course rating indeed 1.7 higher on RR.

Roman Road White 129
Llanwern White 131

http://ncrdb.usga.org/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=17403

The guy I spoke to expressed his surprise at the difference, that's all. I guess you have played both courses and can therefore discuss the criteria on which his surprise is valid or not? Actually, no criteria were ever mentioned.

See post #1369

Llanwern CR 70 Slope 131 Par 70
Celtic Manor CR 72 Slope 129 Par 69

 

[IanM]

However the Slopes at all the Celtic Manor tees are higher than any at Llanwern.
And the Course Ratings at Llanwern are much lower.

See post #1369

Llanwern CR 70 Slope 131 Par 70
Celtic Manor CR 72 Slope 129 Par 69

Careful... when I was at school 131 was higher than 129

Apology awaited....

 

[Old Skier]

Careful... when I was at school 131 was higher than 129

Apology awaited....

You will now get the CR issue which throws me as well