World Handicap System

[wjemather]

How could referring anyone to the rules be of any use when the crux of the problem is that there appears to be a difference between the rules and their application? All it would achieve is to confirm that there is a difference between the rules and their application.

Not really. Some people will always be unable to understand the rules and how they are implemented. Which is fine, because very few people will ever actually need to understand the rules in such detail.

 

[Old Skier]

How could referring anyone to the rules be of any use when the crux of the problem is that there appears to be a difference between the rules and their application? All it would achieve is to confirm that there is a difference between the rules and their application.

It was a bit tongue in cheek really, if they read the information they will be as clued up as the rest of us

 

[3offTheTee]

I had a score 96 with the following on England Golf:WHS 19.4, Course 23, slope 133 score differential 21.2.

I only received 22 shots Stableford. If the score differential is 21.2 and the course is 23 on that particular round am I 1.8 better(23-21.2) OR 1.8 worse (21.2- 19.4)
OR Is there no such correlation?

 

[wjemather]

I had a score 96 with the following on England Golf:WHS 19.4, Course 23, slope 133 score differential 21.2.

I only received 22 shots Stableford. If the score differential is 21.2 and the course is 23 on that particular round am I 1.8 better(23-21.2) OR 1.8 worse (21.2- 19.4)
OR Is there no such correlation?

If you played exactly to your handicap (which is not possible on most rounds) the resultant score differential would be equal to your handicap index. Higher SD would be worse, lower would be better.

 

[IanM]

Sure this is elsewhere ,but can't find it.

Pre WHS if you failed to return your card or enter a score it was a flat 0.1 increase.

What happens now? Nothing, but a slap on the wrist if you offend persistently?

 

[wjemather]

Sure this is elsewhere ,but can't find it.

Pre WHS if you failed to return your card or enter a score it was a flat 0.1 increase.

What happens now? Nothing, but a slap on the wrist if you offend persistently?

Handicap committee's have the responsibility to follow up any missing scores and enter them on the system whenever possible. As such, the action taken depends on their patience. Persistent offences will attract penalty scores initially, with withdrawal of handicap index being the next step. Clubs may also wish to enact their own disciplinary procedures (e.g. restricting competition entry).

 

[IanM]

Thanks. I will have to see how our lot are dealing with it as about 10% of the entries in this weekend's club comp were NRs. (15 out of 140 odd) Seems a lot to me, especially in a stableford.

 

[wjemather]

Thanks. I will have to see how our lot are dealing with it as about 10% of the entries in this weekend's club comp were NRs. (15 out of 140 odd) Seems a lot to me, especially in a stableford.

Agree. There is almost no reason for not returning a score in a Stableford (even if abandoning).

Medals are a bit different and it may take a while for some players to grasp continuing the round for handicapping after essentially DQ-ing themselves from the competition for not holing out. Having said that, we have only had one instance of an NR followed by a blank scorecard from 500+ medal scores - everyone else (out of 50+) has correctly recorded their subsequent hole scores.

 

[IanM]

Agree. There is almost no reason for not returning a score in a Stableford (even if abandoning).

Handicap protection?

 

[IanMcC]

Handicap protection?

I dont think its handicap protection, just not understanding WHS. Since it was explained to me (on here) the action to take for not returned scorecards, I have been adding a Penalty Score to guilty parties. Once they see what it does to their Index, you can be sure that they dont re-offend. Hardly any NRs now.

 

[IanM]

I dont think its handicap protection, just not understanding WHS. Since it was explained to me (on here) the action to take for not returned scorecards, I have been adding a Penalty Score to guilty parties. Once they see what it does to their Index, you can be sure that they dont re-offend. Hardly any NRs now.

I guess if you are taking action, it is a deterrent. If clubs not taking action it isn't. Not sure ours is.

 

[DickInShorts]

On the two occasions where a player in my group has No score on a hole and then don’t finish the next I explain why they need to continue to finish the remaining holes.
Once they grasp the difference of the 0.1 under the old system compared to the ‘opportunity’ under WHS to manipulate their Index they happily adhere to the rules.
I know a few people have had emails from the club asking why they didn’t finish their round and got penalty scores if no allowable reason.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Was reflecting on what WHS has meant to me.

My HI was initially 8.4 cf previous CONGU exact handicap of 8.7 - both playing handicap of 9 on my track. In two months having played no more than half doz rounds my HI has gone from 8.4 to 9.5 (singles PH of 11). Now in the old days it would need me to play net 11 rounds over the buffer for that change - +0.1 at a time. But generally out of 11 rounds I’d play 5 to hcap or buffer; 4 over buffer; and a couple maybe each 2 under CSS. That would all level out to No Change to my exact. No longer.

But the truth is my golf probably merited a h/cap of 10 or 11 (buffer of two on my 8/9 hcap), rather than the 8 or 9 I had. So for the time being I need to accept that my golf is not single figure standard (not fussed about that...SF hcap ’bragging’ is just too much ego and of no great importance really - and of that I have been guilty in the past).

I can see from my record that I have next three counting scores all with diffs less than 9.5 so i have to accept that my HI will most likely continue to increase for a month or so. So be it.

But I can see how what has happened to my hcap can happen in an exaggerated way for the higher 20+ handicappers. They were say 22, now find themselves 26 or above. It’ll all settle down I’m sure.

 

[IanMcC]

Was reflecting on what WHS has meant to me.

My HI was initially 8.4 cf previous CONGU exact handicap of 8.7 - both playing handicap of 9 on my track. In two months having played no more than half doz rounds my HI has gone from 8.4 to 9.5 (singles PH of 11). Now in the old days it would need me to play net 11 rounds over the buffer for that change - +0.1 at a time. But generally out of 11 rounds I’d play 5 to hcap or buffer; 4 over buffer; and a couple maybe each 2 under CSS. That would all level out to No Change to my exact. No longer.

But the truth is my golf probably merited a h/cap of 10 or 11 (buffer of two on my 8/9 hcap), rather than the 8 or 9 I had. So for the time being I need to accept that my golf is not single figure standard (not fussed about that...SF hcap ’bragging’ is just too much ego and of no great importance really - and of that I have been guilty in the past).

I can see from my record that I have next three counting scores all with diffs less than 9.5 so i have to accept that my HI will most likely continue to increase for a month or so. So be it.

But I can see how what has happened to my hcap can happen in an exaggerated way for the higher 20+ handicappers. They were say 22, now find themselves 26 or above. It’ll all settle down I’m sure.

Similar story here, I suppose. Tomorrow I play my 20th scoring round since WHS came in. My old CONGU handicap was 9.5. My initial HI was 7.8, Course Handicap of 9. Currently I am 9.3, CH of 11, PH of 10. I realise that is where I belong, just on the periphery of single figures, but it wont mean anything to me to be out of that bracket.

 

[DickInShorts]

Don’t forget that CONGU handicaps were your potential and WHS is nearer an average

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Don’t forget that CONGU handicaps were your potential and WHS is nearer an average

Absolutely...though when I was asked about my golf pre-WHS it would probably have been more ‘truthful’ to state my average ability rather than my potentI’ll/stretch ability.

 

[jim8flog]

Was reflecting on what WHS has meant to me.

My HI was initially 8.4 cf previous CONGU exact handicap of 8.7 - both playing handicap of 9 on my track. In two months having played no more than half doz rounds my HI has gone from 8.4 to 9.5 (singles PH of 11). Now in the old days it would need me to play net 11 rounds over the buffer for that change - +0.1 at a time. But generally out of 11 rounds I’d play 5 to hcap or buffer; 4 over buffer; and a couple maybe each 2 under CSS. That would all level out to No Change to my exact. No longer.

But the truth is my golf probably merited a h/cap of 10 or 11 (buffer of two on my 8/9 hcap), rather than the 8 or 9 I had. So for the time being I need to accept that my golf is not single figure standard (not fussed about that...SF hcap ’bragging’ is just too much ego and of no great importance really - and of that I have been guilty in the past).

I can see from my record that I have next three counting scores all with diffs less than 9.5 so i have to accept that my HI will most likely continue to increase for a month or so. So be it.

But I can see how what has happened to my hcap can happen in an exaggerated way for the higher 20+ handicappers. They were say 22, now find themselves 26 or above. It’ll all settle down I’m sure.

As I have said on other threads one of my biggest likes is the way the system 'quickly' reacts to reflecting current ability. Whilst I was once a very definite 6 handicapper I have been noticeably declining with age. Under the CONGU system the only way for me to get to the correct handicap for my ability was by handicap review under the old 7 x 0.1s in a row. Since the WHS has come in I have gone from 8 to 11. With over 30 scores in the past 12 months there are just 3 better than handicap and 2 of them have gone out of the 20.

 

[Ethan]

Don’t forget that CONGU handicaps were your potential and WHS is nearer an average

No, it really isn't. Using the mean of the best 8 of 20 means the index approximates to the 4th or 5th best score out of the 20. The mean would be the average of the 10th and 11th. CONGU was really pretty similar because the numerical effect of a typical decrease outweighs the effect of an increase, which was capped.

CONGU tended to result in a lower handicap for a streaky player compared to a steady player, because their really good rounds brought the handicap down more for Mr Streaky, but the upwards effect of bad rounds were the same for both.

All handicap systems are essentially tackling the same problem, that less skilled players have more variable scores. On bad days they have a cricket score but on good days they diverge from their average much more than the better player can, so handicap systems are essentially trying to correct for this. One of the ways of doing this is to have the pivot point closer to your better scores than your worse scores, and others include the playing handicap correction.

WHS is more responsive, because it has much less "memory", you can have a completely new handicap every 20 rounds, whereas CONGU was pegged to the initial handicap then incrementally corrects up or down from that, so takes a longer time for large change.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

I played a casual round at an away course (if that makes any difference?) on Sunday and started to add the score in the EG app. After 5 holes I realised that I had added the wrong tee, so I decided to delete the round and start again. This prompted a message saying something along the lines: "reason for deleting the round?". I stated the reason and deleted it, and started a new round from the correct tee's.

Anyone know if that will show in the system at my home clubs handicap committee?

Just curious as to how it works.

 

[badgergm]

There is nothing in the rules which have already been quoted that needs inferences based on assumptions. It is explicit.

There has been no suggestion that anyone needs to do these calculations but there are plenty in my own club alone who take a close and detailed interest in their handicaps. They will want to know what is happening if their HI is capped and it's only right that the method of calculation is known. And since they'll be asking me, it's all the more important that I have the right answer. I don't care what the answer is, provided it's clear. but it would undoubtedly be better if method and rule matched. The very members who will ask are the ones who will have read and tried to apply what's said in the rules.

Have got response from England Golf. Aside from some guff about going via club handicap committee, then they provided the following explanation:

"Handicap Index calculation 20+ scores considered; best 8 differentials will count towards handicap index.

20+ scores considered; enabling soft and hard caps.

Considering 50 handicap index history records in past year to find low handicap index.

Low Handicap Index = 2.5000 Handicap Index exceeded soft cap (5.8375 > 5.5000); reducing to 5.6688 HD values:

[2.7, 4.7, 5.2, 5.6, 6.5, 6.5, 7.2, 8.3] Handicap Index (Fully Developed) = 5.6688, rounded: 5.7"


(They have taken latest figures from my handicap record rather then the differentials I provided them which were same I posted earlier).

So it is clear from this that they are not rounding before applying soft cap. Which was fairly obvious anyway. They have ignored the question as to whether that was the correct thing to do, and whether that was consistent with the rule that I quoted them. So I'll go back to them on that.