World Handicap System

[Alan Clifford]

Sorry wrong. Rule 2.2 applies he is playing a 18 hole round not a nine hole round.

I am not saying you are incorrect but the congu advice document just says "For a score to be acceptable as a 9-hole score, all holes of the measured 9-hole course must have been played. 9-hole scores are scaled up to an 18-hole equivalent gross differential as set out in Rule 5.1b. For a score to be acceptable as an 18-hole score at least 10 holes of the measured course must have been played. Scores of between 10 and 17 holes are scaled up to an 18-hole equivalent gross differential in accordance with Rule 3.2."

 

[rulie]

We had a stableford last night, perfect conditions, flat calm, a third of the field hit what would have been the old buffer zones.

Result - 0 movement in PCC again, as we've had for every single medal this year. I've asked SG for an explanation of how it's worked out, no doubt they'll come back with the ambiguous waffle that you've copied from USGA above.

Comparing the "results"/output of a new system (WHS) to a different/previous system is a bit of a mugs game. My statistics instructor used to say that two things not the same are different.

 

[jim8flog]

I am not saying you are incorrect but the congu advice document just says "For a score to be acceptable as a 9-hole score, all holes of the measured 9-hole course must have been played. 9-hole scores are scaled up to an 18-hole equivalent gross differential as set out in Rule 5.1b. For a score to be acceptable as an 18-hole score at least 10 holes of the measured course must have been played. Scores of between 10 and 17 holes are scaled up to an 18-hole equivalent gross differential in accordance with Rule 3.2."

I have highlighted the important bit in that, so even if it was acceptable it must have been played on a measured and rated 9 hole course. However a person before going out signs up for an an 18 hole round or a 9 hole round and the card is processed accordingly. In this case the OP signed in to an 18 hole competition.

 

[Alan Clifford]

I have highlighted the important bit in that, so even if it was acceptable it must have been played on a measured and rated 9 hole course. However a person before going out signs up for an an 18 hole round or a 9 hole round and the card is processed accordingly. In this case the OP signed in to an 18 hole competition.

Rule 2 doesn't say you have to specify 9 or 18. "A player is required to pre-register their intent to submit an acceptable score in general play for handicap purposes." So, if the 9 holes played is on a course rated for 9 holes, then surely a 9 hole score should go into the handicap record as it is an acceptable score? I cannot find anything in the rules to say otherwise.

 

[rulefan]

Rule 2 doesn't say you have to specify 9 or 18. "A player is required to pre-register their intent to submit an acceptable score in general play for handicap purposes." So, if the 9 holes played is on a course rated for 9 holes, then surely a 9 hole score should go into the handicap record as it is an acceptable score? I cannot find anything in the rules to say otherwise.

Although he may have "pre-registered their intent to submit an acceptable score in general play for handicap purposes" he declared that he was intending to play an 18 hole round. He didn't complete the specified round. However the committee has the discretion to apply the last paragraph of Rule 2.1b(ii)

 

[jim8flog]

Rule 2 doesn't say you have to specify 9 or 18. "A player is required to pre-register their intent to submit an acceptable score in general play for handicap purposes." So, if the 9 holes played is on a course rated for 9 holes, then surely a 9 hole score should go into the handicap record as it is an acceptable score? I cannot find anything in the rules to say otherwise.

It is all in the software,

With our PSI screens when you register your intention the screen will ask you where you intend to play and how many holes you will be playing (our 9 hole measured course allows 9 or 18 holes).

As already said the OP declared his intention to play 18 holes by entering an 18 hole competition.

 

[rulie]

It is all in the software,

With our PSI screens when you register your intention the screen will ask you where you intend to play and how many holes you will be playing (our 9 hole measured course allows 9 or 18 holes).

As already said the OP declared his intention to play 18 holes by entering an 18 hole competition.

Just another deviation from the "World" Handicap System. We played yesterday, intending to play 18 holes, but stopped after 13 holes due to extreme heat. We all entered nine hole scores as required. (this is the practice in North America)

 

[rulie]

Here is the USGA handicap guidance on 9 hole scores:
2.2b For a 9-hole Score

For a 9-hole score to be acceptable for handicap purposes, a minimum of 7 holes must be played. If a player has not recorded a score on at least the minimum number of holes required for a 9-hole score, the score is not acceptable for handicap purposes.
If a player records a score on more than 9 holes but fewer than the minimum number of holes required for an 18-hole score to be acceptable, all surplus hole scores are disregarded and a 9-hole acceptable score must be submitted.
A hole is considered to have been played if it has been started.
Notes:

1. An acceptable 9-hole score must be played over 9-holes with a current Course Rating and Slope Rating (see Rule 2.1 Acceptability of Scores).

1. When a score is scaled back to a 9-hole acceptable score, it must be combined with another acceptable 9-hole score to create an 18-hole score (see Rule 5.1b For a 9-hole Score).

5.1b For a 9-hole Score

If a player submits a 9-hole score, an 18-hole Score Differential must be created by combining two 9-hole Score Differentials.
A 9-hole Score Differential is calculated as follows using 50% of the playing conditions calculation (PCC) adjustment for the day:
Score
Differential
=
(113 ÷
9-hole Slope Rating)
x
(9-hole adjusted gross score –
9-hole Course Rating –
(0.5 x PCC adjustment))
Notes:

1. A 9-hole Score Differential remains unrounded until after it has been combined with a second 9-hole Score Differential and an 18-hole Score Differential is calculated.

1. For the calculation of a 9-hole Course Handicap, see Rule 6.1b For a 9-hole Round.

1. An 18-hole PCC adjustment ranges from -1.0 to +3.0 (see Rule 5.6 Playing Conditions Calculation).

An 18-hole Score Differential is then created by either:

• Combining a 9-hole Score Differential with an existing 9-hole Score Differential, or
• Combining a 9-hole Score Differential with the next 9-hole Score Differential that is calculated.

Note: An uncombined 9-hole score will be discarded when it becomes older than the twentieth Score Differential in the scoring record.

 

[tobybarker]

Any normal member, reading they previous 40 pages, would agree that the system is a complete mess.

Some of you will argue that it all makes sense, is fair, blah blah.... But just take a step back and look at what they have created....a solution looking for a problem.

Very few golfers ever play different courses, and when they do their playing handicaps rarely change now (mine is only one more on my nearest championship course). Really, nobody sees the point. That's not to say there isn't a point, but they haven't made a system that's any clearer when they had the chance (95% and all that).

Add to that the differences between Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland, the inability to enter scores from English courses in my Wales golf app (and vice versa).... The whole system is a bit of s confused mess......

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Comparing the "results"/output of a new system (WHS) to a different/previous system is a bit of a mugs game. My statistics instructor used to say that two things not the same are different.

No Indeed absolutely, however we've had a variety of conditions and scores, and despite the possibility of a 4 shot swing through PCC, not a single movement, I'd love to see how it works, but it seems like it's a state secret

 

[Colin L]

Any normal member, reading they previous 40 pages, would agree that the system is a complete mess.

Some of you will argue that it all makes sense, is fair, blah blah.... But just take a step back and look at what they have created....a solution looking for a problem.

Very few golfers ever play different courses, and when they do their playing handicaps rarely change now (mine is only one more on my nearest championship course). Really, nobody sees the point. That's not to say there isn't a point, but they haven't made a system that's any clearer when they had the chance (95% and all that).

Add to that the differences between Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland, the inability to enter scores from English courses in my Wales golf app (and vice versa).... The whole system is a bit of s confused mess......

A wonderful approach to making a point. Anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't normal. Thanks for the assessment.
From what you say, those who will argue that it makes sense must simultaneously not see the point of it.
I wonder why I bothered to read on. But I did.

For the golfer who isn't interested the workings of the system there is only one thing new - understanding that you get a specific handicap for the particular course you are going to and getting it from a chart or an app or a website. That's not much of a challenge. Using your WHS handicap comes down to turning up for a game, knowing or finding out your course handicap, enjoying your game and if you have an acceptable score writing down or entering your gross score per hole and returning it. Just the one thing new in all of that.

Modifying players' handicaps for particular formats is not new. The 95% for stroke play competitions is new to us, but not to much of the rest of the world. Anyway, let the computer get on with it. The one difference amongst the CONGU countries is that Scotland alone confirms to the WHS rule that in stroke play this 95% allowance is applied to the exact unrounded value of the course handicap but that's a computer calculation which players are never expected to do , is entirely to do with an individual competition and has absolutely no effect on the calculation of handicap indexes.

You can't enter scores on your Welsh app from a course in England .....whereas you used to be able to? Be patient, worldwide connectivity will come some day. For me, I could have the patience but won't have the time left to see it, but it will come. CONGU countries first I expect and when it does it will be progress, a step forward. something new. And no doubt there will be those who find fault with that.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

A wonderful approach to making a point. Anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't normal. Thanks for the assessment.
From what you say, those who will argue that it makes sense must simultaneously not see the point of it.
I wonder why I bothered to read on. But I did.

For the golfer who isn't interested the workings of the system there is only one thing new - understanding that you get a specific handicap for the particular course you are going to and getting it from a chart or an app or a website. That's not much of a challenge. Using your WHS handicap comes down to turning up for a game, knowing or finding out your course handicap, enjoying your game and if you have an acceptable score writing down or entering your gross score per hole and returning it. Just the one thing new in all of that.

Modifying players' handicaps for particular formats is not new. The 95% for stroke play competitions is new to us, but not to much of the rest of the world. Anyway, let the computer get on with it. The one difference amongst the CONGU countries is that Scotland alone confirms to the WHS rule that in stroke play this 95% allowance is applied to the exact unrounded value of the course handicap but that's a computer calculation which players are never expected to do , is entirely to do with an individual competition and has absolutely no effect on the calculation of handicap indexes.

You can't enter scores on your Welsh app from a course in England .....whereas you used to be able to? Be patient, worldwide connectivity will come some day. For me, I could have the patience but won't have the time left to see it, but it will come. CONGU countries first I expect and when it does it will be progress, a step forward. something new. And no doubt there will be those who find fault with that.

Sorry, but he's correct.

Any new all consuming "world" system should have been looking for the simplest solution possible, not this mess. I speak as a h'cap sec, and have (I hope) full understanding of how it works, but it is simply ridiculous compared to the simple system we had before. What needed changing was course ratings that differed widely but not seemingly equitably.

And don't get me started on a "world" system that isn't actually connected between any two countries in the world, and that immediately has differences between countries in how it's applied, so what was the point?

 

[jim8flog]

Sorry, but he's correct.

but it is simply ridiculous compared to the simple system we had before.

The trouble with the simple system we had before is it did not work for players like me.

Once a 6 handicap, age and injury put me in the declining category. But with the old system it would take 10 rounds worse than buffer to go up 1 shot by which time I really needed to go up 3 shots. I had to push very hard to get a handicap review and it was probably only because I was on the handicap committee I got one. The result a 1 shot increase when I needed at least 2.

Come the WHS and I have gone up 3 shots from my low index.

 

[Colin L]

I do wonder to what extent the kind of wholesale dismissal of the WHS has to do with the transitional problems we have been through and with the technological support for the system rather than the system itself which for the user is as simple as its predecessor: know your handicap, play golf, put scores in, check for changes in your handicap, play golf.....

What, for example, is so wrong with the two principal changes:
a) using slope ratings to give players a tailor-made handicap for a course which takes account of the relative difficulty of that course between the scratch player and the less proficient; and
b) using an averaging system intended to demonstrate actual playing ability rather than a ratchet system intended to demonstrate potential?

 

[Colin L]

The trouble with the simple system we had before is it did not work for players like me.

Once a 6 handicap, age and injury put me in the declining category. But with the old system it would take 10 rounds worse than buffer to go up 1 shot by which time I really needed to go up 3 shots. I had to push very hard to get a handicap review and it was probably only because I was on the handicap committee I got one. The result a 1 shot increase when I needed at least 2.

Come the WHS and I have gone up 3 shots from my low index.

In a massive exercise I undertook a few years ago to address the problems of underhandicapping in my own club, I found nearly 20% of the playing membership to be underhandicapped by 2 or more strokes, a substantial number of those being out by 7 or 8 strokes and a few by 17 or so strokes. The Annual Review report churned out by the computer would tell me to increase the handicap of a player with a 10 stroke deficit by one stroke ..... "with caution".

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I do wonder to what extent the kind of wholesale dismissal of the WHS has to do with the transitional problems we have been through and with the technological support for the system rather than the system itself which for the user is as simple as its predecessor: know your handicap, play golf, put scores in, check for changes in your handicap, play golf.....

What, for example, is so wrong with the two principal changes:
a) using slope ratings to give players a tailor-made handicap for a course which takes account of the relative difficulty of that course between the scratch player and the less proficient; and
b) using an averaging system intended to demonstrate actual playing ability rather than a ratchet system intended to demonstrate potential?

On the part in bold, it's playing a large factor I'd suggest, OCS (for Scottish Golf) appear to be nowhere near up to the task of building this system, whether that's due to not understanding golf, or just not being a very good software provider, who knows, but our last medal we had a third of the field could not verify their scores at the end of the round (the worst so far), folks are pretty fed up of it, after the simplicity of the HDID software, two years of Beta testing and 3 months into the competitive season and it's getting worse not better.

RE: a) I absolutely hate the slope system, it's just a fancy SSS, if the SSS had been more accurate then folks handicaps would be more closely aligned, and of course it's horses for courses, some people just play some courses better than others. People want to know 'my handicap is "x" ' , not 'my handicap is 4 here, 6 there, and 5 somewhere else'
RE b) Yes that's fair comment I think, but that could have been addressed within the existing system, there was no reason to stick to +0.1 all the time

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The trouble with the simple system we had before is it did not work for players like me.

Once a 6 handicap, age and injury put me in the declining category. But with the old system it would take 10 rounds worse than buffer to go up 1 shot by which time I really needed to go up 3 shots. I had to push very hard to get a handicap review and it was probably only because I was on the handicap committee I got one. The result a 1 shot increase when I needed at least 2.

Come the WHS and I have gone up 3 shots from my low index.

Likewise - off 8 I was a 10 or 11 most days - good at playing to a buffer of 2 shots but struggling in comps off 8. And so I didn’t go up. I now have a PH of 11 round my own track and that is a fair reflection at the moment and gives me a chance in comps.

And for me more importantly I have stopped obsessing about my handicap. It will be what it will be. I just play my best every round - previously when it was clear I was over buffer I stopped bothering.

Before I play a WHS acceptable round I check the diff score I will lose - and get some idea of what my target is for the round - but that’s it. And I have absolutely no interest post round working out the impact of the round just played. I can’t change the impact so just let the system tell me. And that is just fine - I get on with playing golf and leave the sums to the system and the number obsessives - and as a ‘mathematician’ that’s a big ‘leave’ that I have decided to simply accept.

As a result and all in all, at the moment I am enjoying my handicap qualifying golf more than under the old system

 

[wjemather]

RE: a) I absolutely hate the slope system, it's just a fancy SSS, if the SSS had been more accurate then folks handicaps would be more closely aligned, and of course it's horses for courses, some people just play some courses better than others. People want to know 'my handicap is "x" ' , not 'my handicap is 4 here, 6 there, and 5 somewhere else'

Slope and SSS are entirely different concepts. Course Rating directly relates to SSS as the expected score for a scratch golfer in normal conditions; Slope is an adjusted ratio of Course Rating to Bogey Rating that is used to facilitate people with handicaps from different courses to compete on an equal footing (course knowledge aside). In other words, people now have the same handicap (index) everywhere that is comparable. As you hinted, this was not the case previously, when a category 1/2 golfer at a short (e.g. par-3) course could compete on similar courses but would often struggle to break 90 on a 6000+ yard course - this is where Slope really makes an impact in giving us a more equitable system.

 

[IanM]

While arguing they are different concepts, you explain (excellently) how they are different entities, while (possibly) ignoring Buddha's point about how he (and many golfers) perceive they were designed to do similar things through different means.

I might disagree with him in that I am interested in knowing that if I get 7 shots here, I get 9 shots there. Tells me the second course is a bit tougher. By tougher I mean in a notional sense, don't jump all over by quoting definitions. I am dealing with the practicalities of playing golf, not the practice of dissecting the rule book as if were scripture. Which like all scripture, you are entitled to do, as long as you don't insist I do similar.

 

[jim8flog]

RE: a) I absolutely hate the slope system, it's just a fancy SSS, if the SSS had been more accurate then folks handicaps would be more closely aligned, and of course it's horses for courses, some people just play some courses better than others. People want to know 'my handicap is "x" ' , not 'my handicap is 4 here, 6 there, and 5 somewhere else'

Slope and SSS are totally different although SSS and Course Rating are similar.

I do want to know what my handicap will be on other courses.

I am someone who has played a lot of his golf on other courses in competition play, under the UHS wherever I went my handicap was the same regardless of the SSS which I thought was very unfair. Par and SSS differentials did not give me or take way any shots to reflect the difference between where I play and there. With the WHS I now know my handicap will be reflective of the course rating and slope on another course.

I know most of the guys I play with feel the same way as we all play golf away from home a lot.