World Handicap System (WHS)

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
9,469
I've always argued that Congu's approach is wrong (at least wrt Hole 1 and 10 SIs). If the first hole deserves to be a low SI, then that's what it should be, otherwise it gives an undue advantage to the lower handicap player! The 'advantage' that a higher handicap gets from gatting a shot at 2 or 10 would be 'due', not 'undue'!
And FWIW, my club has sensibly ignored Congu's advice too. Holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 are SIs 10, 3, 6 and 8.
Current CONGU not WHS.
Two players, A 0.4 exact, B 0.5 exact. Standing on the extra 19th (1st) tee - all square. This hole is a par 3 SI 1.
Who do you put your money on?
 

IainP

Tour Rookie
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
3,083
Location
Oxfordshire
Just seen this and believe you are nearly correct.
The fundamental difference between the Slope system and Congu's is that Congu onlyrates courses for a Scratch player. Slope rates courses for both a Scratch player (the Course Rating) and a 'Bogey' player. It's the 'slope' of a line drawn between those 2 numbers that method its name. So while 'slope is difficulty' is almost correct, a 'complete' definition is 'Slope compared to 115, indicates difficulty for a Bogey golfer compared to a Scratch one'.

And Yes, I believe those scores (84 and 86 resp) are correct.
My aim was to show a worked example using actual course data, as personally I find that easier to follow and maybe some others may also.
Glad you agree with the scores part.
Not clear which part you think is "nearly correct" (& perhaps correct or not is an absolute anyway).
Did you mean 115?
 

Beezerk

Money List Winner
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
8,549
Location
Gateshead, Tyne & Wear
Finally got my account sorted, 12.5 is what I've been given. It is odd though looking at my score history graph, only 3 scores are below 12.5 the rest are above. The best scores are all from 2018, from mid 2019 onwards they've been terrible 🤦
 

Foxholer

Major Champion
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
20,391
Location
Wasting away again in Margaritaville
Current CONGU not WHS.
Two players, A 0.4 exact, B 0.5 exact. Standing on the extra 19th (1st) tee - all square. This hole is a par 3 SI 1.
Who do you put your money on?
You are imagining/manufacturing an extreme 'not in the real world' case!!
Do you know of ANY course where that's anywhere near likely to be the case? :rolleyes:
The likes of James Braid, Harry Colt and other 'proper' course designers generally let golfers warm up with a 'not the most challenging' hole (and/so generally not a Par 3 either).
The reality is far more likely to be something like our 10th - a longish Par 4 reachable by (longish hitting) low-cappers but not by (shorter/wayward-ish) higher cappers. So expect a half for the 'not a shot hole' for your example and also for the more usual example of a low-capper vs high-capper too.
 

Foxholer

Major Champion
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
20,391
Location
Wasting away again in Margaritaville
My aim was to show a worked example using actual course data, as personally I find that easier to follow and maybe some others may also.
Glad you agree with the scores part.
Not clear which part you think is "nearly correct" (& perhaps correct or not is an absolute anyway).
Did you mean 115?
Doh! Should have been 113!
And it was your text about/definition of Slope that was 'nearly' correct. I believe my expansion IS correct.
113 is 'the average' slope - where a Bogey player would be 'expected' to play to (aka Bogey Rating of) CR + HI.
 

IanMcC

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2019
Messages
379
You are imagining/manufacturing an extreme 'not in the real world' case!!
Do you know of ANY course where that's anywhere near likely to be the case? :rolleyes:
The likes of James Braid, Harry Colt and other 'proper' course designers generally let golfers warm up with a 'not the most challenging' hole (and/so generally not a Par 3 either).
The reality is far more likely to be something like our 10th - a longish Par 4 reachable by (longish hitting) low-cappers but not by (shorter/wayward-ish) higher cappers. So expect a half for the 'not a shot hole' for your example and also for the more usual example of a low-capper vs high-capper too.
Our first hole is SI 12. Its a long par 4 at 465 yards. Using the past 4 year's data it comes out as the third hardest hole on the course off of the white tees. Using the RoH book method it would be SI 4. I think that would be fairer.
Saying that, we have no plan to change the Stroke Indices of the holes, as it would be too costly.
 

Foxholer

Major Champion
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
20,391
Location
Wasting away again in Margaritaville
Our first hole is SI 12. Its a long par 4 at 465 yards. Using the past 4 year's data it comes out as the third hardest hole on the course off of the white tees. Using the RoH book method it would be SI 4. I think that would be fairer.
Saying that, we have no plan to change the Stroke Indices of the holes, as it would be too costly.
That backs up my reasoning/disagreement with Congu's approach
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
8,370
Location
Yeovil
I am another who thinks setting hole difficulty for match play is totally bonkers.

Why should one format of play totally dictate to a substantial level what happens in another format.

Change the method of giving strokes in match play and problem solved.
 

Foxholer

Major Champion
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
20,391
Location
Wasting away again in Margaritaville
I am another who thinks setting hole difficulty for match play is totally bonkers.

Why should one format of play totally dictate to a substantial level what happens in another format.

Change the method of giving strokes in match play and problem solved.
Well, Stableford works that way too! As does Medal wrt Stableford Adjustment, for a few more days, but there's an 'equivalent' in WHS). It's only in pure Scratch rounds where SI is ignored and there's not many of those played compared to other formats.
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
8,370
Location
Yeovil
Well, Stableford works that way too! As does Medal wrt Stableford Adjustment, for a few more days, but there's an 'equivalent' in WHS). It's only in pure Scratch rounds where SI is ignored and there's not many of those played compared to other formats.
You are right but where I play Stableford is by far the most played format whether socially, swindles or competitions.

E.G in our club knockouts out of a membership of nearly 800 fewer than about 40 players enter.

In our Stableford comps we generally exceed 100 players and we have 4 a week.

Every single swindle I know of uses Stableford and there are 3 or 4 different swindles most days.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Messages
57
Well, Stableford works that way too! As does Medal wrt Stableford Adjustment, for a few more days, but there's an 'equivalent' in WHS). It's only in pure Scratch rounds where SI is ignored and there's not many of those played compared to other formats.
problem is solved by having two sets, one for match play and one for stroke play. Which does happen in some places I believe.
i think it’s not universally adopted because it is thought to be too difficult for folk to cope with. Which, given the complexities of WHS is looking like a pretty weak argument.......
 

3offTheTee

Tour Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
1,865
Location
Cumbria
Will an expert please clarify:

My handicap index is 18.2.

However on the latest figure available up to 3/10/20 it is shown as18.6 Why the discrepancy please. Realise no scores have been posted since then.


Also when scores are added a 94 will be replaced by a 96. Am I correct in stating the extra2 shots will equate to 0.25 rounded up to 0.3 so depending on the first answers will be either 18.5 or 18.9.

Thanks for any help provided
 

Imurg

Grand Slam Winner
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
29,370
Location
Aylesbury Bucks
Just been looking at my numbers..
It seems I've got a supplementary card still to be used in the calculation
It was a good one - nett 4 under - and got me cut so that's going to drop my number when the last data dump happens.
But it also triggered an ESR..
Will the new system take that into account as well..?
Anyone got any idea how an ESR that doesn't appear in the WHS numbers gets handled..?
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
9,469
problem is solved by having two sets, one for match play and one for stroke play. Which does happen in some places I believe.
Australia introduced two sets of indices some years ago. One based entirely on recorded difficulty for stroke play, the other on the strategic and tactical nuances of match play.
The allocation of strokes in the latter was mandated by Golf Australia and were therefore the same at all courses. The use of two cards was also mandated.
When the then EGU decided to follow suit by recommending two sets, they published the match play principles but left the fine tuning to the club. In the event many clubs didn't bother using the match play version because a) they didn't agree with the idea or b) decided they couldn't afford the cost signage and cards. My club switched to the the match play card with no side effects or comments from members (apart from having to remember where they got strokes in stablefords). We have tuned it slightly but still work to the same principles.
A club in Wales did a large computer simulation and showed that random distributions of indices made no significant difference to the top 3 stableford positions and only had a minor effect on the top 10 positions.
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
1,226
How does this bit stop blatant banditry? No minimum rounds per year, no compulsion to play qualifiers. Matchplay should be fun next year, even major stablefords could be a nonsense
Easy. Condition of Competition: If you haven't submitted X scores in the prior 12 months you cannot enter/win prizes.
 
Top