WHS FAQs

https://www.englandg...-FAQs-final.pdf

Ignore the CONGU stuff if not relevant to your jurisdiction.

Interesting they would choose yo use best 8 of the last 20 scores rather than USGA best 10

So as previously discussed, apart from the Slope system and score averages versus the existing ‘ratchet’ system for handicap moves, all is pretty similar for CONGU folk. Interesting if it will be little change for USGA players and whether they can sell this as a system with any meaningful correlation between worldwide handicaps following implementation.

I know that my and most of my fellow players over here handicap would be a different number if we included matchplay, 4BB, ‘most likely scores’, unfinished rounds and assumptions on gimmee putts etc. It is a perennial refrain of many here after a fun round ‘if only I could do that in a comp’.

So as previously discussed, apart from the Slope system ...

In all probability Slope would have been introduced into the CONGU system sooner or later. The EGA have successfully included it pretty seamlessly and England Golf men were virtually the only organisation out of step with Course Rating.

Having been on the Course Rating team here (only 4 more courses to do in the County) I think the introduction of Slope is long overdue and will be a significant step,forward on improving handicap accuracy.

Having been on the Course Rating team here (only 4 more courses to do in the County) I think the introduction of Slope is long overdue and will be a significant step,forward on improving handicap accuracy.

41 clubs but slightly more courses as there are a few with 27 holes and four with 36 holes.

Pretty good going then

Its a good team. I think that courses need to be rerated every 10 years, so it will be interesting to see what happens then i.e. will we have another major push over a two year period or will we be rerating some courses in a couple of years or so to allow us just to do a few a year.

Anyway the job has been done and I am sure that the results will be interesting, as and when they are published, for everyone. Perhaps one’s views of course difficulty may be vindicated or more likely it’s just one’s own game that suits some and not others.

Its a good team. I think that courses need to be rerated every 10 years, so it will be interesting to see what happens then i.e. will we have another major push over a two year period or will we be rerating some courses in a couple of years or so to allow us just to do a few a year.

Anyway the job has been done and I am sure that the results will be interesting, as and when they are published, for everyone. Perhaps one’s views of course difficulty may be vindicated or more likely it’s just one’s own game that suits some and not others.

How big is your setup? How many team leaders and team members have you recruited? Do you do joint sessions with the Ladies teams?

We were late getting started. I was asked to organise things last year and spent most of the year finding volunteers, selecting 8 leaders and helping with training. Fortunately we had one of the EG lady experts doing most of the training. We only managed about a dozen courses out of 200

Once the season started this year I was too busy with refereeing and handicap support so I handed over to someone else. I don't know what the tally is but I'm told they are on target to finish next year.

We have, I think,5 or 6 team leaders. When we do a course we have a men’s and ladies team working at the same time. This shares the workload (e.g. one team does the “odds” greens and one the ‘evens’) and also the team leaders can share notes and queries. In the teams I have worked i have had 2 team leaders and probably a total of 10 or 12 other members helping out. So I assume we must have 20 to 30 volunteers, It is better to have experience of working together and once the same team has done a course you can really speed up. However, as I am sure you know, some courses are easier than others and some clubs are more obliging than others. I know the performance across the country is varied and in some areas they are unlikely to be even close to being ready by 1/1/20. I think there will be an interim ‘temporary’ slope given to unrated courses in 2020 but by then I assume the clubs themselves will be pushing for it to get done.

You mention obliging clubs. How many offered complementary refreshments? We found single owned propriety clubs and smaller members clubs to be excellent but large propriety chains terrible.

Yes, pretty much the same here in terms of members clubs being obliging and some proprietary ones being difficult or badly organised. Some did not block off enough tee times to allow us to work, some wouldn’t or struggled to allow us space to do 9 holes in the morning and 9 in the afternoon. A few did not have a ‘measured’ course despite saying they had and we had to abandon two visits and had to get the clubs to have their course correctly measured (you dread to think how they conducted qualifying competitions). However the majority of clubs were very supportive- I guess we are about 75% member owned clubs here. A very interesting process and one I would and have recommended others to get involved in. I think the sheer detail and volume of objective numbers involved compared with the few subjective elements gives me a degree of confidence that the results will be fair and comparable, never perfect but a significant improvement.

Are you aware of (m)any major variations of CR from the SSS. I'm not aware of any adrift by more than 1 stroke and very few of those.

As it happens my club lost one on the longest tees but we had just altered two holes significantly.

No,there have not been many major variations but we had an appeal from one Club that did have a significant change and that is ongoing.

I assume that in future the fact that it will have a decimal point in it will effect calculations of shots received. For exampl a course rated at 71.5 would today be as 72 and everyone would receive the full shots, but in future the formula including the slope will mean that a 71.5 vs. a 72.4 will have a greater impact on shots received.

No,there have not been many major variations but we had an appeal from one Club that did have a significant change and that is ongoing.

I assume that in future the fact that it will have a decimal point in it will effect calculations of shots received. For exampl a course rated at 71.5 would today be as 72 and everyone would receive the full shots, but in future the formula including the slope will mean that a 71.5 vs. a 72.4 will have a greater impact on shots received.

How so? Shots received or given are based on course handicap, which is independent of course rating (unless different tees are being used).

Sorry, shouldn’t have said shots received. The decimal point will make a difference in one’s handicap index calculation won’t it? At the moment there is no decimal point so a course with a course rating of 71.5 has the same impact on handicap as one at 72.4.

Sorry, shouldn’t have said shots received. The decimal point will make a difference in one’s handicap index calculation won’t it? At the moment there is no decimal point so a course with a course rating of 71.5 has the same impact on handicap as one at 72.4.

Yes, it will make a difference to the differential (score minus course rating) used for handicap calculations and thus a slight difference to calculated handicap index.

USGA Course Rating" is expressed as strokes taken to one decimal place,

No,there have not been many major variations but we had an appeal from one Club that did have a significant change and that is ongoing.

I assume that in future the fact that it will have a decimal point in it will effect calculations of shots received. For exampl a course rated at 71.5 would today be as 72 and everyone would receive the full shots, but in future the formula including the slope will mean that a 71.5 vs. a 72.4 will have a greater impact on shots received.

 

How so? Shots received or given are based on course handicap, which is independent of course rating (unless different tees are being used).

According to Golf Australia (point 2), the WHS will use the course handicap formula we have in place in the EGA system. I really hope it is true as, I for one, find the USGA formula and its subsequent adjustments needlessly complicated by introducing necessary extra steps in setting up competitions. Even USGA suggests this formula (without the par) to determine a player's "target score".

Course Handicap = Exact Handicap * Slope/113 + (Course Rating - Par)

https://www.englandg...-FAQs-final.pdf

 

Ignore the CONGU stuff if not relevant to your jurisdiction.

If I'm reading this correctly, only singles rounds will be posted. Correct?

https://www.englandg...-FAQs-final.pdf

 

Ignore the CONGU stuff if not relevant to your jurisdiction.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, only singles rounds will be posted. Correct?

Not sure how you got that,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Interesting they would choose yo use best 8 of the last 20 scores rather than USGA best 10

Well, this was one of the early things discussed when the new WHS was first discussed.

Everyone's handicap index will go down. I'll be getting "better" without even trying,,,,,,,,,, :cheesy:

So as previously discussed, apart from the Slope system and score averages versus the existing ‘ratchet’ system for handicap moves, all is pretty similar for CONGU folk. Interesting if it will be little change for USGA players and whether they can sell this as a system with any meaningful correlation between worldwide handicaps following implementation.

I know that my and most of my fellow players over here handicap would be a different number if we included matchplay, 4BB, ‘most likely scores’, unfinished rounds and assumptions on gimmee putts etc. It is a perennial refrain of many here after a fun round ‘if only I could do that in a comp’.

Other than the 8 out of 10 instead of 10/10 I see no difference here in the USA. I guess I'm missing some minor detail(s) but,,,,,,,,,,

I'm not sure why that document says "At first scores played in a 4BBB will not be accepted; only singles competitions and social scores." What might be the holdup in allowing 4BBB scores (and match play ?) etc, being included starting Jan 1, 2020 ?

Also, this sounds a bit strange as well.

Q: How can the playing field be level if we do not accept 4BBB as acceptable scores, and yet other countries do?

A: In the initial transition phase all countries will have some flexibility in order to reflect their own playing culture: but it is hoped that, over time, all formats will be acceptable for posting.

If the whole point of having a WHS is for everybody's handicap to be as "equal" as possible how can they "hope" that "over time all formats will be acceptable for posting" ?

https://www.englandg...-FAQs-final.pdf

 

Ignore the CONGU stuff if not relevant to your jurisdiction.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, only singles rounds will be posted. Correct?

Yes. In England though. Not US as far as I’ve read.

So USGA we are still posting 4BBB scores. England won’t be initially.

After a year or two I imagine the two will converge. Either we won’t be posting 4BBB scores or they will be.

Posting best ball scores never made any sense to me and where you see the most “legal sandbagging”. That and skins games.

Team play has not been postable under CONGU nor EGA.

So as previously discussed, apart from the Slope system and score averages versus the existing ‘ratchet’ system for handicap moves, all is pretty similar for CONGU folk. Interesting if it will be little change for USGA players and whether they can sell this as a system with any meaningful correlation between worldwide handicaps following implementation.

I know that my and most of my fellow players over here handicap would be a different number if we included matchplay, 4BB, ‘most likely scores’, unfinished rounds and assumptions on gimmee putts etc. It is a perennial refrain of many here after a fun round ‘if only I could do that in a comp’.

 

Other than the 8 out of 10 instead of 10/10 I see no difference here in the USA. I guess I'm missing some minor detail(s) but,,,,,,,,,,

 

I'm not sure why that document says "At first scores played in a 4BBB will not be accepted; only singles competitions and social scores." What might be the holdup in allowing 4BBB scores (and match play ?) etc, being included starting Jan 1, 2020 ?

 

Also, this sounds a bit strange as well.

 

Q: How can the playing field be level if we do not accept 4BBB as acceptable scores, and yet other countries do?

 

A: In the initial transition phase all countries will have some flexibility in order to reflect their own playing culture: but it is hoped that, over time, all formats will be acceptable for posting.

 

If the whole point of having a WHS is for everybody's handicap to be as "equal" as possible how can they "hope" that "over time all formats will be acceptable for posting" ?

Initially England won’t be posting 4BBB scores. But, as you say, no change in the USGA system.

Over time, a year or whenever they get enough data I suppose, either we will stop posting 4BBB scores or they will start.

So on the 1/1/20 roll out of the WHS, there will be a lot of “local customs” in the various systems to start. As everyone gets used to the new system and the new caps, the various ruling bodies will get together and decide to converge what works and what doesn’t. And eventually it’ll be an actual WHS with all the same rules.

But that day won’t be 1/1/20.

It is probable that Golf Australia will be able to implement some time in 2019.

 

 

Initially England won't be posting 4BBB scores. But, as you say, no change in the USGA system.

 

Over time, a year or whenever they get enough data I suppose, either we will stop posting 4BBB scores or they will start.

 

So on the 1/1/20 roll out of the WHS, there will be a lot of "local customs" in the various systems to start. As everyone gets used to the new system and the new caps, the various ruling bodies will get together and decide to converge what works and what doesn't. And eventually it'll be an actual WHS with all the same rules.

 

But that day won't be 1/1/20.

It is probable that Golf Australia will be able to implement some time in 2019.

PS. I think you meant GB&I

It is probable that Golf Australia will be able to implement some time in 2019.

 

 

Initially England won't be posting 4BBB scores. But, as you say, no change in the USGA system.

 

Over time, a year or whenever they get enough data I suppose, either we will stop posting 4BBB scores or they will start.

 

So on the 1/1/20 roll out of the WHS, there will be a lot of "local customs" in the various systems to start. As everyone gets used to the new system and the new caps, the various ruling bodies will get together and decide to converge what works and what doesn't. And eventually it'll be an actual WHS with all the same rules.

 

But that day won't be 1/1/20.

 

It is probable that Golf Australia will be able to implement some time in 2019.

 

PS. I think you meant GB&I

I went with England as the PDF literally says “England Golf Handicapping”.

With the PDF laying out what alternatives to the WHS “England Golf” is going to use, and the acceptability of “wrinkles” in the WHS based on local custom at the launch, I’m not totally sure the pdf covers all of GB&I. It may, it may not, but the pdf itself isn’t totally clear on the issue. :)

Is there going to be any limit on how much a players hcp index can increase over a 12 month period?

E.g. I play 20 comps and all are very high scores. Does my index go from 12 to 28?