World Handicap System

[rulefan]

Except my obligation as a player to “make the best possible score at each hole” is done by not playing.

 

[Blue in Munich]

The biggest benefit is accounting for relative difference between golfers. In old system, imagine a scratch golfer and 25 handicapper playing at same course, that is a very long hard course. The scratch golfer may just about accept the 25 shots he is giving the other guy.

But, they then go and play another course. Very short and relatively easy. Less yardage for the high handicapper to mess up compared to the scratch golfer. The scratch golfer may feel very disheartened at giving this guy 25 shots now.

With WHS, the guy who gets 25 shots at the very hard course may only get 20 shots when they go and play the easier course. That is the advantage of it.

But, there are a lot of bits to it that are definitely more confusing to golfers than before, and probably more of a nuisance. Hopefully they refine it over time, my personal opinion.

Thanks for the explanation, which sense; however I'm not necessarily convinced of the need for the change in shorts because if the second course is short & easy, surely it is easier for the scratch player as well? I'd also be interested to know what percentage of golf is played away from the home club to make all the upheaval necessary; how often does this issue that you have described actually occur?

I'd also be interested to know what the trends are with handicaps at other clubs, but at mine there seems to be a trend of the low getting lower & the high getting higher, regardless of how they are playing.

The whole thing strikes me as the golfing equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[Swango1980]

Thanks for the explanation, which sense; however I'm not necessarily convinced of the need for the change in shorts because if the second course is short & easy, surely it is easier for the scratch player as well? I'd also be interested to know what percentage of golf is played away from the home club to make all the upheaval necessary; how often does this issue that you have described actually occur?

I'd also be interested to know what the trends are with handicaps at other clubs, but at mine there seems to be a trend of the low getting lower & the high getting higher, regardless of how they are playing.

The whole thing strikes me as the golfing equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Yes, it would be easier for scratch player most likely, but not by same number of strokes.

Imagine course with all par 4s over 400 yards, par 5's over 600 yards.

Now, on same course, simply move the tees forward so all par 4's are under 300 yards and all par 5's under 500.

In effect, you have made course easier for all players. However, by reducing the course by over 1000 yards, you have reduced the distance in which higher handicaps would inevitably make more mistakes than low handicappers. You are basically ignoring the 1000-2000 yards in which the higher handicappers will still take more shots than the lower handicappers

With WHS, this would be taken into account by ensuring higher handicappers do not get quite as many shots

 

[bunkerblaster]

The best 8 out 20 scores is a good system. The different slope rating of courses and the Handicap Index system leading to different Course Handicaps on different courses is a good idea. But the application of playing handicap allowances and the administrative burden is a total nightmare. There is a loss of the ability to play handicap rounds at another course unless the home handicapper plays ball and will process your scores. The ISVs have been effectively sidelined by the home golf unions, who yes seem to want to cash in somehow from the new WHS system.

 

[backwoodsman]

I'm still trying wrap my brain around this.

I can play reasonably well outward nine, then for some reason find myself unable to complete a round. But I'd end up recording a lifetime "best" score. Surely this is madness?

View attachment 36448

Not sure why you think this will give you a "lifetime best score" ? If you only did 10 holes "properly" it gives you a nett bogey if medal play or a "1 pointer" if stableford, for each hole not completed. Am I missing something?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Yes, it would be easier for scratch player most likely, but not by same number of strokes.

Imagine course with all par 4s over 400 yards, par 5's over 600 yards.

Now, on same course, simply move the tees forward so all par 4's are under 300 yards and all par 5's under 500.

In effect, you have made course easier for all players. However, by reducing the course by over 1000 yards, you have reduced the distance in which higher handicaps would inevitably make more mistakes than low handicappers. You are basically ignoring the 1000-2000 yards in which the higher handicappers will still take more shots than the lower handicappers

With WHS, this would be taken into account by ensuring higher handicappers do not get quite as many shots

Okay, I'll bite.

Lets say that our mystery scratch player averages 30 putts per round and our happy hacker averages 40. A difference of 10 putts that is unlikely to change at the different courses. Conventional course set up, 10 par 4's, 4 par 5's.

At your long course the scratch player is likely to to be able to reach all the par 4's in 2 & the par 5's in 3; the happy hacker is unlikely to be able to reach any of those in regulation. So there's a 14 shot difference.

At your short course, dependant obviously on the exact set up, the scratch player should be on or close to all the par 4's off the tee and should have the ability to reach all the par 5's in 2; the happy hacker should have the potential to reach all the par 4's & par 5's in regulation. A difference of... 14 shots.

So, add the putts and it's a difference of 24 shots on the long course and ... (drum roll) 24 shots on the short course.

Yes, it's overly simplistic and yes, I'm playing Devil's advocate but someone is trying to overthink something that was relatively simple. No the old system wasn't perfect, but no one is convincing me that this is a giant leap for mankind; at least not a giant leap in the right direction.

 

[rosecott]

The best 8 out 20 scores is a good system. The different slope rating of courses and the Handicap Index system leading to different Course Handicaps on different courses is a good idea. But the application of playing handicap allowances and the administrative burden is a total nightmare. There is a loss of the ability to play handicap rounds at another course unless the home handicapper plays ball and will process your scores. The ISVs have been effectively sidelined by the home golf unions, who yes seem to want to cash in somehow from the new WHS system.

When did this change happen?

 

[Swango1980]

Okay, I'll bite.

Lets say that our mystery scratch player averages 30 putts per round and our happy hacker averages 40. A difference of 10 putts that is unlikely to change at the different courses. Conventional course set up, 10 par 4's, 4 par 5's.

At your long course the scratch player is likely to to be able to reach all the par 4's in 2 & the par 5's in 3; the happy hacker is unlikely to be able to reach any of those in regulation. So there's a 14 shot difference.

At your short course, dependant obviously on the exact set up, the scratch player should be on or close to all the par 4's off the tee and should have the ability to reach all the par 5's in 2; the happy hacker should have the potential to reach all the par 4's & par 5's in regulation. A difference of... 14 shots.

So, add the putts and it's a difference of 24 shots on the long course and ... (drum roll) 24 shots on the short course.

Yes, it's overly simplistic and yes, I'm playing Devil's advocate but someone is trying to overthink something that was relatively simple. No the old system wasn't perfect, but no one is convincing me that this is a giant leap for mankind; at least not a giant leap in the right direction.

You are missing one crucial aspect. You are assuming both players make no mistakes, and purely reach green in number of shots based on how far they can hit it. I think you also made up a generic number of putts for each player, not sure what this was based on?

The higher handicapper will generally not be as accurate as the low handicapper. So, as soon as you increase the yardage, you increase the danger and opportunity for mistakes. This is relatively more difficult for the poorer player, by definition.

Take an 18 hole par 4 course, holes over 400 yards. The 25 handicapper gets 25 shots on scratch player. Now, go to an 18 hole par 3 course, all holes less than 150 yards. If the scratch golfer still gave the guy 25 shots, you'd be saying both players had the same ability on the par 4 course from the tee to a distance 150 yards from the green. The difference in ability would be purely from 150 yards in. That would be incorrect

 

[Colin L]

I'm still trying wrap my brain around this.

I can play reasonably well outward nine, then for some reason find myself unable to complete a round. But I'd end up recording a lifetime "best" score. Surely this is madness?

If you only play 10 holes out of 18, there is no way you record a lifetime best score. In truth, you have no score at all to record. The fact that the handicap system includes a calculation by which your 10 holes can be used as part of the demonstration of your playing ability does not give you bragging rights to an actual 18 hole score. The scaling up to an 18 hole score is a method of padding out your score in a way that is neutral as far as its effect on the recalculation of your handicap index is concerned. It says nothing about your playing ability.

 

[Swango1980]

Okay, I'll bite.

Lets say that our mystery scratch player averages 30 putts per round and our happy hacker averages 40. A difference of 10 putts that is unlikely to change at the different courses. Conventional course set up, 10 par 4's, 4 par 5's.

At your long course the scratch player is likely to to be able to reach all the par 4's in 2 & the par 5's in 3; the happy hacker is unlikely to be able to reach any of those in regulation. So there's a 14 shot difference.

At your short course, dependant obviously on the exact set up, the scratch player should be on or close to all the par 4's off the tee and should have the ability to reach all the par 5's in 2; the happy hacker should have the potential to reach all the par 4's & par 5's in regulation. A difference of... 14 shots.

So, add the putts and it's a difference of 24 shots on the long course and ... (drum roll) 24 shots on the short course.

Yes, it's overly simplistic and yes, I'm playing Devil's advocate but someone is trying to overthink something that was relatively simple. No the old system wasn't perfect, but no one is convincing me that this is a giant leap for mankind; at least not a giant leap in the right direction.

P.S. another thing you are missing, you say on the short course the scratch player has the potential to be on or close in less than regulation. However, the high handicapper will find it easier to get on in 2 than the low handicapper will get on in one. Many scratch golfers don't drive the ball close to 300 yards regularly. Their accuracy will more than likely be their strength, distance an added bonus for some.

So, on the short course in your example, it is not fair on the low handicapper to say the difference tee to green is still 14 shots.

What if you made the par 4's 350 yards. Possibly still easily reachable in regulation for high handicappers. Not reachable in one by scratch player. So, no mistakes, both players get green in 2. So, if we had 14 par 4s like this, do we just say suddenly the 25 handicapper at the hard course has to play off 11 at the course with 350 yard par 4's, because now both players theoretically can get to green in same number of shots?

 

[williamalex1]

P.S. another thing you are missing, you say on the short course the scratch player has the potential to be on or close in less than regulation. However, the high handicapper will find it easier to get on in 2 than the low handicapper will get on in one. Many scratch golfers don't drive the ball close to 300 yards regularly. Their accuracy will more than likely be their strength, distance an added bonus for some.

So, on the short course in your example, it is not fair on the low handicapper to say the difference tee to green is still 14 shots.

What if you made the par 4's 350 yards. Possibly still easily reachable in regulation for high handicappers. Not reachable in one by scratch player. So, no mistakes, both players get green in 2. So, if we had 14 par 4s like this, do we just say suddenly the 25 handicapper at the hard course has to play off 11 at the course with 350 yard par 4's, because now both players theoretically can get to green in same number of shots?

In the bad old days wasn't the difficulty of the hole was taken into account, when accessing a hole's stoke index.

 

[tobybarker]

Why do we have the notion of a par for the course? If a scratch golfer is excited to go around in the course rating number, surely the par is wrong? I've never really thought about these things before whs came along!

 

[Swango1980]

Why do we have the notion of a par for the course? If a scratch golfer is excited to go around in the course rating number, surely the par is wrong? I've never really thought about these things before whs came along!

Par is the benchmark, but simply cannot indicate how difficult a course is.

A course with 18 par 4's of 320 yards will be Par 72. A course with 18 par 4's of 450 yards will also be par 72.

The first course will clearly be much easier than the second course. Course Rating, and previously SSS are used to define that, not par.

 

[Jimaroid]

The scaling up to an 18 hole score is a method of padding out your score in a way that is neutral as far as its effect on the recalculation of your handicap index is concerned. It says nothing about your playing ability.

It isn’t neutral. For example one of my counting 8 scores in my record, a gross 82 on the Jubilee, would be replaced by a “scaled up” score as per the table to a gross 78 had I walked in unwell after 11 holes. It would then become one of my lowest scores in my scoring record, further distorting my handicap.

Surely this is nonsense?

 

[rulefan]

It isn’t neutral. For example one of my counting 8 scores in my record, a gross 82 on the Jubilee, would be replaced by a “scaled up” score as per the table to a gross 78 had I walked in unwell after 11 holes. It would then become one of my lowest scores in my scoring record, further distorting my handicap.

It is neutral in the sense that it is the same for everyone.

 

[Swango1980]

It isn’t neutral. For example one of my counting 8 scores in my record, a gross 82 on the Jubilee, would be replaced by a “scaled up” score as per the table to a gross 78 had I walked in unwell after 11 holes. It would then become one of my lowest scores in my scoring record, further distorting my handicap.

Surely this is nonsense?

Did you have a relatively worse front 9 than you had back 9 when shooting that 82?

If you walk in early, obviously there is no definitive way of knowing for sure what you would have scored. So the system makes a basic judgement, and as you said came up with 78. Now, as you played on you scored an 82. But after 11 holes that was not guaranteed. On another day you could have shot a 74, 75, 80, 81, etc.

So, all the system is doing is trying to make it's most reasonable estimate based on the scores you have entered, so it is not a completely wasted effort.

Of course, you want people playing a full round, so you would never want a player getting into a habit of quitting their round early to manipulate their handicap calculation. The WHS manual makes this clear and player would face disciplinary procedures. But, if player gets injured, feels I'll or stops due to an emergency, the system tries to cater for that.

 

[Jimaroid]

Of course, you want people playing a full round, so you would never want a player getting into a habit of quitting their round early to manipulate their handicap calculation. The WHS manual makes this clear and player would face disciplinary procedures. But, if player gets injured, feels I'll or stops due to an emergency, the system tries to cater for that.

As I've pointed out, quitting for valid reasons shouldn't lead to disciplinary procedures. I think I understand how the system works now and I think it's daft, the old system also catered perfectly well for these situations except now there's no clear disincentive for people claiming illness and walking off. In such cases I can't see how any committee thinks it has a right to make or question medical assessments of a player without prejudice, the only thing a committee can do is to post the score.

 

[rulefan]

CONGU Decision 1(p)
Q. A few players fail frequently to return a scorecard on completion of their round in a Qualifying Competition causing the Handicap Committee additional work in establishing the player(s) who have failed to return cards in order that the competition can be closed and handicap adjustments made as appropriate. What sanctions can a club take against a player who fails to fulfil this basic requirement?
A. The club would be entitled to suspend the player’s right to compete in club competitions for a specified period or, for more persistent offences, suspend his handicap for an appropriate period.

 

[backwoodsman]

Why do we have the notion of a par for the course? If a scratch golfer is excited to go around in the course rating number, surely the par is wrong? I've never really thought about these things before whs came along!

Its due to the difference between dealing with things as individual items and as collections of items.

Imagine a course of 18 par 4s. Total par of 72. But its course rating is 71.

Effectively meaning a scratch golfer is expected to get a birdie somewhere. But they wont all do it on the same hole. So 100 scratch golfers go round and each get the birdie. Therefore 100% of the golfers go round in 71 - so CR is correct. And, assuming the birdies are evenly spread across the course, 95% of the golfers will make par on each hole - so you have to say the par 4 for each hole is also correct, and therefore total par 72 for the course has to be correct. Ok, its an overly simple way of looking at it, but it illustrates the point

 

[Jimaroid]

CONGU Decision 1(p)
Q. A few players fail frequently to return a scorecard on completion of their round in a Qualifying Competition causing the Handicap Committee additional work in establishing the player(s) who have failed to return cards in order that the competition can be closed and handicap adjustments made as appropriate. What sanctions can a club take against a player who fails to fulfil this basic requirement?
A. The club would be entitled to suspend the player’s right to compete in club competitions for a specified period or, for more persistent offences, suspend his handicap for an appropriate period.

I presume that's directed at my comment? I've never mentioned not returning a scorecard, I'm talking about returning an incomplete scorecard.