World Handicap System (WHS)

[rulefan]

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.

Apply the formula

Index x (Slope / 113) on each course for a range of handicaps. What gross score is needed to have a net score = Course Rating

 

[ExRabbit]

Hdid email from today - nice set of videos to help people get their heads around it all.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzZqRnQh4SbgW0wWyoEiiEC8cJoWVMxfg

 

[jim8flog]

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 CONGU 2016-19 manual goes in to the rubbish bin on November 2nd

Whatever is said in Appendix E applies.

 

[Ethan]

Finally got properly into the England Golf site to see the scores used for my indicative handicap. All correct except for one, my second best score, which was missing. Have emailed them a screenshot of my clubs handicap record and hopefully will get fixed, with a 79 coming in and an 87 exiting the best 8, so looks like a full 1.0 further reduction. I am sure they are a bit busy right now, though.

 

[BubbaP]

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

Does post https://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/threads/world-handicap-system-whs.104054/post-2249251 help?

 

[Foxholer]

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.

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 9, 3, 6 and 8.

 

[Foxholer]

I read a lot of informative posts from "those in the know" - you know who you are, thanks. I bought into the "slope isn't an absolute measure of difficulty" and have passed this on to others. In the UK, as we are not doing the "course rating minus par" thing, people may point to "but I only key in slope".

Below are a couple of courses near me:

A) Par 72 CR 71 Slope 133

B) Par 72 CR 73.7 Slope 127

Someone with a HI of 11 would be granted:
13 shots at course A
12 shots at course B

If I'm correct so far, I think this feeds the "slope is difficultly" conversation as this player 'gains more shots".

But, am I correct is saying to "match the course" the player would need to shoot
84 at course A
86 at course B

Am I on the right track? ??

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.

 

[Foxholer]

...
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!

Another who has misunderstood the concept of the Slope system! It's not simply 'Slope'. It's Scratch CR and Bogey CR, with Slope being the relationship between those numbers that allows the Course Handicap for any Index to be calculated.
Check the respective Scratch and Bogey Ratings out - at least off the White Tees. Then decide which is deemed harder!

 

[IanM]

Another who has misunderstood the concept of the Slope system! It's not simply 'Slope'. It's Scratch CR and Bogey CR, with Slope being the relationship between those numbers that allows the Course Handicap for any Index to be calculated.
Check the respective Scratch and Bogey Ratings out - at least off the White Tees. Then decide which is deemed harder!

For the record... white tees, Roman Road CR is higher than Llanwern by 1.7... although if you talk to scratch players round here, they'd say "Blimey, is that all???"

But clearly, they will offend the rules gods if they express that opinion!

 

[rulefan]

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?

 

[BubbaP]

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]

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]

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?
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]

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]

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?
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]

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

 

[rulefan]

That backs up my reasoning/disagreement with Congu's approach

Do you mean CONGU in 2019 or after WHS?

 

[Foxholer]

Do you mean CONGU in 2019 or after WHS?

Congu Pre WHS.
Remind me of the difference post WHS.

 

[jim8flog]

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]

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.