• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

World Handicap System (WHS)

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?
 
harpo_72 said:
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?
Click to expand...

That was adjusted and the 'CSS' figures have now been replaced with a PCC factor.
 
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 said:
That was adjusted and the 'CSS' figures have now been replaced with a PCC factor.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Foxholer said:
They used CSS cf SSS? Probably reasonable, as equates to Conditions Adjustment though that will no longer apply for non-comp rounds; just checking
Click to expand...
Yes. The difference between SSS and CSS is shown as a PCC adjustment. They missed that on the first run.
 
rulefan said:
Where did you find this?
Click to expand...

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.
 
IanMcC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
IanMcC said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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. :cool:
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Orikoru
Why can't slope ratings be more fluid?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
2K
mikejohnchapman
mikejohnchapman
B
Amount of cards required for comps
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
9K
Lord Tyrion
Lord Tyrion
P
Getting a handicap for someone likely to be at max hcp
Replies
2
Views
749
Petercool
P
rudebhoy
Strange email from EG
Replies
6
Views
2K
Lord Tyrion
Lord Tyrion
P
  • Locked
World Handicap System
Replies
10
Views
1K
Billysboots
Billysboots
Top