World Handicap System (WHS)

[harpo_72]

So looking into it, not sure if it’s an error just the system neglects it, but it doesn’t account for the css of the scores it has used in generating the first HI. I suppose going forward it will not matter?

 

[Tashyboy]

And that is exactly why handicaps move more quickly under WHS. You play to your handicap and it still goes up because of losing that score from your 8/20.

gonna ring tricky Trev, he is gonna be gutted.

 

[jim8flog]

So looking into it, not sure if it’s an error just the system neglects it, but it doesn’t account for the css of the scores it has used in generating the first HI. I suppose going forward it will not matter?

That was adjusted and the 'CSS' figures have now been replaced with a PCC factor.

 

[backwoodsman]

Thought I'd just say that as far as my own H/C is concerned, I'm content with how things have happened.

When I first registered & looked at the EG site (about a week ago) all but the 2 or 3 latest of my scores were there, and my HI looked about right (0.7 higher than my old exact H/C). By Monday this week all scores were in there and my HI had changed slightly (one of my best 8 had fallen out of the last 20 rounds - replaced by something less good). Wedndsday, checked my HI , then looked at the board on the clubhouse wall and got my Course Handicap and played in the monthly Stableford. Finished the round and bashed the score into the clubhouse terminal. Checked this morning, and the score is there and my HI has changed slightly - another of my best 8 has dropped out of the last 20).
WHS is working for me. Dont see what all the fuss is about ?

 

[jim8flog]

Frustratingly I was going to put it to the test yesterday with a Supplementary Score but we had 3 temporary greens.

 

[balaclava]

Im not trying to be cheeky, but you really should read the England Golf toolkit, or at least watch the HDID videos on youtube, or something.

I have done both and I could not find answers, I found the Video (the one which ends with just enjoy your golf) particularly unhelpful

 

[harpo_72]

That was adjusted and the 'CSS' figures have now been replaced with a PCC factor.

I just don’t see it in the calculations they just seem to be using the par for the course, which differed to the css and that is shown in the congu handicap cut at the time.

 

[rulefan]

They used CSS cf SSS? Probably reasonable, as equates to Conditions Adjustment though that will no longer apply for non-comp rounds; just checking

Yes. The difference between SSS and CSS is shown as a PCC adjustment. They missed that on the first run.

 

[jim8flog]

I just don’t see it in the calculations they just seem to be using the par for the course, which differed to the css and that is shown in the congu handicap cut at the time.

Note in the photo PCC is the single digit number

 

[harpo_72]

Yes. The difference between SSS and CSS is shown as a PCC adjustment. They missed that on the first run.

This is what I would have expected, but they have not and also doubt whether they applied the 2 different course ratings.

 

[harpo_72]

Note in the photo PCC is the single digit number

View attachment 33347

Looked at mine and I don’t have that column it’s date, course ( no ref to tee), adjusted gross, what I think might be the whs index

 

[rulefan]

This is what I would have expected, but they have not and also doubt whether they applied the 2 different course ratings.

They have had difficulties in identifying courses. Seemingly still working on it.

 

[IanM]

Rounded to the integer

...aka the "whole number!" Up or down...

 

[rulefan]

Exact to one decimal place.

Where did you find this?

 

[IanMcC]

Where did you find this?

I didnt find it anywhere. I used my common sense. I defy anyone to admit they have played in a scramble where the first decimal place is not used. If you take 10% of combined under CONGU, and it comes to, say 4.4, you dont get 4 shots, you get 4.4.
If we round everything off after taking 25/20/15/10, we will have a lot of card playoffs. Most well run scrambles have about 6 or 7 teams within a shot or 2 of winning.
Where did you see it would be rounded, rulefan? There is nothing in Appendix C of RoH to suggest either method, but surely common sense should prevail.

 

[3offTheTee]

I didnt find it anywhere. I used my common sense. I defy anyone to admit they have played in a scramble where the first decimal place is not used. If you take 10% of combined under CONGU, and it comes to, say 4.4, you dont get 4 shots, you get 4.4.
If we round everything off after taking 25/20/15/10, we will have a lot of card playoffs. Most well run scrambles have about 6 or 7 teams within a shot or 2 of winning.
Where did you see it would be rounded, rulefan? There is nothing in Appendix C of RoH to suggest either method, but surely common sense should prevail.

As I asked the original question let me be more specific:

4 guys playing in a Texas scramble with Course Handicaps of 5, 11, 16, and 20. How many shots will they receive please?

 

[rulefan]

I didnt find it anywhere. I used my common sense. I defy anyone to admit they have played in a scramble where the first decimal place is not used. If you take 10% of combined under CONGU, and it comes to, say 4.4, you dont get 4 shots, you get 4.4.
If we round everything off after taking 25/20/15/10, we will have a lot of card playoffs. Most well run scrambles have about 6 or 7 teams within a shot or 2 of winning.
Where did you see it would be rounded, rulefan? There is nothing in Appendix C of RoH to suggest either method, but surely common sense should prevail.

Playing Handicap, which is what they are, is always a whole number.
6.2a The calculated Playing Handicap is rounded to the nearest whole number, with .5 rounded upwards

 

[rulefan]

As I asked the original question let me be more specific:

4 guys playing in a Texas scramble with Course Handicaps of 5, 11, 16, and 20. How many shots will they receive please?

7

 

[IanMcC]

Playing Handicap, which is what they are, is always a whole number.
6.2a The calculated Playing Handicap is rounded to the nearest whole number, with .5 rounded upwards

I appreciate that, but respectfully suggest that Rule 6.2a was written with normal modes of golf in mind, not Scrambles. Even Appendix C, the only place where scrambles are mentioned, states that the percentages are only recommended.
To answer 3offthe Tee's question, at Rhuddlan you would get 7.9, at rulefan's gaff you would get 7.

 

[IanMcC]

25% of 5 is 1.25 = 1.3, or 1 at rulefans

20% of 11 is 2.2, or 2 at rulefans

15% of 16 is 2.4, or 2 at rulefans

10% of 20 is 2.0, or 2 at rulefans



So 7.9 against 7, surely?