WHS FAQs

[Newby]

In the original announcements it was made clear that local/national traditional conventions would be provided for as 'variations'. (Or words to that effect).

_It is not our intention to try to force a change on the way that golf is played around the world or to try and remove the variations. The cultural diversity that exists within the game, including different formats of play and degrees of competitiveness, is what makes the sport so universally popular. Through collaboration with National Associations, the goal has been to try to accommodate those cultural differences within a single WHS._

A year ago, CONGU said the following: _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._

 

 

[cheers big ears]

I agree - and I think a hard and fast introduction would be a disaster - In the UK handicaps are much more formal and used for a lot things such as qualification into event (eg Payers of handicap of 5 or less is a common restriction for regional scratch tournaments). The much more frequent competition play in the UK will suffer greatly if handicaps are easily manipulated.

 

Clearly this is a local problem - and only speculation. But I think the baby steps approach is probably a good one.

 

Pity no information seems to be available from any of the reliable sources letting us know what's actually planned, even locally!!

[Newby]

I'm going to an England Golf ( CONGU) seminar later this week. I'll report back what I can.

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

>

> I agree with @"Deceptively Short" , the regional differences in which scores to post will still remain, at least for the time being. Who knows, we may see those differences eliminated at some point.

> And for @Roadking2003 , I think you're right, most golfers don't need a handicap to travel to different parts of the world.

 

I've played golf all over the world including many group golf trips and I've been playing for almost 60 years. I have never needed a WHS and I have never met anybody who needed a WHS. I'm sure those people exist, but they are in such an extreme minority that the whole effort is a waste. Each region could have easily addressed any shortcomings of their system with a fraction of the effort and disruption that the WHS will bring.

[Newby]

> @Roadking2003 said:

Each region could have easily addressed any shortcomings of their system with a fraction of the effort and disruption that the WHS will bring.

 

If each region thought they had no shortcomings they wouldn't have bothered. But presumably each region believes there are things elsewhere which offer one or more improvements.

[cheers big ears]

I've just heard a rumour that the start date has gone to September 2020.... if true that means UK will likely have all next season on the current system.

[Newby]

The UK (CONGU) has announced 1 November 2020 for implementation and England will not include matchplay scores

[Deceptively Short]

> @Newby said:

> The UK (CONGU) has announced 1 November 2020 for implementation and England will not include matchplay scores

 

How about better ball or team/Bowmaker scores?

[Newby]

No decision made yet on either. But Bowmaker v unlikely as there is no independent marker/scorer.

Incidentally, the term Bowmaker went out of fashion decades ago and is rarely used now. It was never widely used anyway it seems.

2 from 4, 2 from 3, 3 from 4 is the usual description.

 

 

[Deceptively Short]

A Bowmaker is a 2 scores out of 3 competition.

To put it better, will they be accepting any non singles strokeplay scores? If no (which they have said beforehand) do they think they may do in future? Or are they kicking this into the long grass?

[Newby]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> A Bowmaker is a 2 scores out of 3 competition.

> To put it better, will they be accepting any non singles strokeplay scores? If no (which they have said beforehand) do they think they may do in future? Or are they kicking this into the long grass?

I don't know what formats you are thinking of but unless there is independent attestation, very unlikely.

 

[Deceptively Short]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > A Bowmaker is a 2 scores out of 3 competition.

> > To put it better, will they be accepting any non singles strokeplay scores? If no (which they have said beforehand) do they think they may do in future? Or are they kicking this into the long grass?

> I don't know what formats you are thinking of but unless there is independent attestation, very unlikely.

>

All I am asking is are there any formats under consideration for ‘acceptable posting’ other than singles strokeplay (pre registered and attested)? If so, when?

 

[Newby]

Other than competitions, not that I have been informed about.

[Colin L]

There will be a list of different formats including Four Ball and Match Play which can provide acceptable scores from both competition and general play. Authorised Associations will, however, be able to select from that list the formats that will provide acceptable scores within its jurisdiction. Thus, for example, CONGU can exclude Four Ball and Match Play in the meantime but include them at a later date.

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> I have been expecting more information to come from the USGA and other WW golf organizations than what has happened. I recall thinking that one change would be the definition of Course Handicap where the difference between Course Rating and Course Par would be factored in (meaning that the CH of a scratch golfer on the 5200 yard tees would be different than the CH of a scratch golfer on the 7600 yard tees). Is that the case?

>

> Thanks.

>

> dave

I suspect this was answered in the ealrier replies to it, but anyway, there will be a choice given to Authorised Associations to calculate course handicaps either

by including an adjustment for any difference between course rating and par i.e . CH = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113) + (Course Rating - Par) or

by calculating the Course handicap without that adjustment i.e. Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113)

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I have been expecting more information to come from the USGA and other WW golf organizations than what has happened. I recall thinking that one change would be the definition of Course Handicap where the difference between Course Rating and Course Par would be factored in (meaning that the CH of a scratch golfer on the 5200 yard tees would be different than the CH of a scratch golfer on the 7600 yard tees). Is that the case?

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > dave

> I suspect this was answered in the ealrier replies to it, but anyway, there will be a choice given to Authorised Associations to calculate course handicaps either

> by including an adjustment for any difference between course rating and par i.e . CH = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113) + Course Rating - Par) or

> by calculating the Course handicap without that adjustment i.e. Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113)

 

I have no knowledge to say that you are wrong here. OTOH, both ESC scores and scores on holes not played will now be affected by how CH is calculated. So making this a 'choice' seems like a strange choice to me, as I would have expected that at least this element of handicapping would be common across all organizations.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

dave

[Deceptively Short]

Do we have a reason for the delay to implementation by 10 months?

Only as part of my county’s course rating team we have been working very hard to get all courses rated by the end of this season (we are doing the final one next month). Had we known that we had another complete season it would have been extremely helpful.

[Colin L]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> Do we have a reason for the delay to implementation by 10 months?

> Only as part of my county’s course rating team we have been working very hard to get all courses rated by the end of this season (we are doing the final one next month). Had we known that we had another complete season it would have been extremely helpful.

 

I can think of two possible practical reasons - course ratings won't be finished for an earlier date or the software won't be ready - but that's entirely conjecture. I know what the WHS scheme is to be but not yet what the CONGU choices will be amongst the many options that will be available or what the timing is to be. I'll know more later this week after a Scottish Golf meeting.

[Mr. Bean]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > Do we have a reason for the delay to implementation by 10 months?

> > Only as part of my county’s course rating team we have been working very hard to get all courses rated by the end of this season (we are doing the final one next month). Had we known that we had another complete season it would have been extremely helpful.

>

> I can think of two possible practical reasons - course ratings won't be finished for an earlier date or the software won't be ready - but that's entirely conjecture. I know what the WHS scheme is to be but not yet what the CONGU choices will be amongst the many options that will be available or what the timing is to be. I'll know more later this week after a Scottish Golf meeting.

 

I am rather sure I have told this joke on this forum before but as you are going to that Scottish Golf meeting I will tell it again and urge you to share it with your colleagues in that meeting:

- What is the difference between Italian mafia and Scottish mafia?

- Italian mafia makes you an offer you cannot refuse. Scottish mafia makes you an offer you cannot understand.

[Newby]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > Do we have a reason for the delay to implementation by 10 months?

> > Only as part of my county’s course rating team we have been working very hard to get all courses rated by the end of this season (we are doing the final one next month). Had we known that we had another complete season it would have been extremely helpful.

>

> I can think of two possible practical reasons - course ratings won't be finished for an earlier date or the software won't be ready - but that's entirely conjecture. I know what the WHS scheme is to be but not yet what the CONGU choices will be amongst the many options that will be available or what the timing is to be. I'll know more later this week after a Scottish Golf meeting.

My understanding is that rating is pretty well on but the delay is primarily re the system. Options for the Authorised Association to be finalised (matchplay was only eliminated on Thursday). Getting the WHS running and fully tested. Finalising the algorithm for the conversion of handicaps.

[Newby]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I have been expecting more information to come from the USGA and other WW golf organizations than what has happened. I recall thinking that one change would be the definition of Course Handicap where the difference between Course Rating and Course Par would be factored in (meaning that the CH of a scratch golfer on the 5200 yard tees would be different than the CH of a scratch golfer on the 7600 yard tees). Is that the case?

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > dave

> I suspect this was answered in the ealrier replies to it, but anyway, there will be a choice given to Authorised Associations to calculate course handicaps either

> by including an adjustment for any difference between course rating and par i.e . CH = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113) + (Course Rating - Par) or

> by calculating the Course handicap without that adjustment i.e. Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113)

Colin

It would appear that CONGU has opted for the latter.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @"Colin L" said:

> There will be a list of different formats including Four Ball and Match Play which can provide acceptable scores from both competition and general play. Authorised Associations will, however, be able to select from that list the formats that will provide acceptable scores within its jurisdiction. Thus, for example, CONGU can exclude Four Ball and Match Play in the meantime but include them at a later date.

 

And so the grand plan for a WHS has failed even before it is implemented.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > > Do we have a reason for the delay to implementation by 10 months?

> > > Only as part of my county’s course rating team we have been working very hard to get all courses rated by the end of this season (we are doing the final one next month). Had we known that we had another complete season it would have been extremely helpful.

> >

> > I can think of two possible practical reasons - course ratings won't be finished for an earlier date or the software won't be ready - but that's entirely conjecture. I know what the WHS scheme is to be but not yet what the CONGU choices will be amongst the many options that will be available or what the timing is to be. I'll know more later this week after a Scottish Golf meeting.

> My understanding is that rating is pretty well on but the delay is primarily re the system. Options for the Authorised Association to be finalised (matchplay was only eliminated on Thursday). Getting the WHS running and fully tested. Finalising the algorithm for the conversion of handicaps.

 

Why only in UK?

[Augster]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > There will be a list of different formats including Four Ball and Match Play which can provide acceptable scores from both competition and general play. Authorised Associations will, however, be able to select from that list the formats that will provide acceptable scores within its jurisdiction. Thus, for example, CONGU can exclude Four Ball and Match Play in the meantime but include them at a later date.

>

> And so the grand plan for a WHS has failed even before it is implemented.

 

 

Baby steps.

 

The first step in the US will be only attested scores IMO. Easy enough step for 99% of people with a valid handicap I’d bet.

 

Then next year the USGA and R&A (and everyone else) can squabble about whether match play scores should be included full time. (They should). As long as your opponents are attesting your match play score, why WOULDN’T it count? Guy had 6 birdies against me (as a 5) and shot 68 in a match. OF COURSE that should sink his handicap. I don’t even know why this is an issue. 12/20 high scores will get thrown out anyway. If a guy wants to actually tank during a match, more power to him. When he does pounce and shoot a winning score, it should get posted.

 

I’m actually quite surprised they don’t post 4BB and match play scores overseas. Especially with as much match play gets played. Here in America, 2 out of my last 20 scores are match play. As a 6, one is a keeper (74/4.5 dif) and one is a throwaway. (85/14.7 dif). As a 5.1 index, I SHOULD HAVE to post when I better my cap. When I blow up (14.7 dif) it’s never making my 10/20 or 8/20. It really doesn’t matter if I wasn’t “trying my hardest” when I was well out of a hole. It’s not a keeper anyway.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Augster said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > There will be a list of different formats including Four Ball and Match Play which can provide acceptable scores from both competition and general play. Authorised Associations will, however, be able to select from that list the formats that will provide acceptable scores within its jurisdiction. Thus, for example, CONGU can exclude Four Ball and Match Play in the meantime but include them at a later date.

> >

> > And so the grand plan for a WHS has failed even before it is implemented.

>

>

> Baby steps.

>

> The first step in the US will be only attested scores IMO. Easy enough step for 99% of people with a valid handicap I’d bet.

>

SNIP

 

I am curious as to what form you think the attesting requirement would take here in the US. These days over half of my golf is played with guys who don't have a USGA handicap and I wonder how they would attest to my scores. At this point in time the courses we are playing are not doing posting, so no turning in signed scorecards (unless something changes - not impossible).

 

dave

 

 

[Augster]

I foresee a situation where you have a guy sign your card. Then don’t turn it in. Nobody needs the extra paperwork.

 

BUT, if you’re an accused cap cheat, you’d better be able to come up with those cards. Granted, they could just make them and sign them themselves. But in my experience, most all the cheats in my club PLAY WITH GUYS AT MY CLUB! They just don’t hand in scores. It’s not like they’re claiming they played somewhere else on some random day with random players and had them sign the fake card. They are simply “on their honor” to post their scores. And they don’t.

 

Much like we are “on our honor” for the past couple of years to NOT post scores played alone.

 

Having soft attestation in place will make it even easier for a handicap chair to keep tabs on accused cheats. For the rest of us, it’ll make no difference at all.

[Colin L]

How a card is attested will be for Authorised Associations to choose from set options, the bottom line requirement being that you have to be accompanied for a score to be acceptable. I expect CONGU will continue to require that you have a marker who certifies your score.

[Colin L]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > > Do we have a reason for the delay to implementation by 10 months?

> > > Only as part of my county’s course rating team we have been working very hard to get all courses rated by the end of this season (we are doing the final one next month). Had we known that we had another complete season it would have been extremely helpful.

> >

> > I can think of two possible practical reasons - course ratings won't be finished for an earlier date or the software won't be ready - but that's entirely conjecture. I know what the WHS scheme is to be but not yet what the CONGU choices will be amongst the many options that will be available or what the timing is to be. I'll know more later this week after a Scottish Golf meeting.

>

> I am rather sure I have told this joke on this forum before but as you are going to that Scottish Golf meeting I will tell it again and urge you to share it with your colleagues in that meeting:

> - What is the difference between Italian mafia and Scottish mafia?

> - Italian mafia makes you an offer you cannot refuse. Scottish mafia makes you an offer you cannot understand.

 

I wish I could finnish this off with an appropriate joke, but I don't know any Scandinavian ones and it would be cheating to ask Mr Google.

[Colin L]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > There will be a list of different formats including Four Ball and Match Play which can provide acceptable scores from both competition and general play. Authorised Associations will, however, be able to select from that list the formats that will provide acceptable scores within its jurisdiction. Thus, for example, CONGU can exclude Four Ball and Match Play in the meantime but include them at a later date.

>

> And so the grand plan for a WHS has failed even before it is implemented.

 

 

Not so. There is a common framework within which there are optional ways of doing some things. For example, if CONGU chooses that a player must pre-register that he is going to submit a score and the USGA doesn't, that may affect the relative number of scores that are submitted but it does not in any way change how the handicap indices are calculated from the scores that are returned in each jurisdiction.

 

But why not wait for knowledge of the system, before dismissing it. You wouldn't want us to think you were the kind of person who just enjoys being agin everything whether he knows about it or not, would you?

[Newby]

> @"Mr. Bean" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > > > Do we have a reason for the delay to implementation by 10 months?

> > > > Only as part of my county’s course rating team we have been working very hard to get all courses rated by the end of this season (we are doing the final one next month). Had we known that we had another complete season it would have been extremely helpful.

> > >

> > > I can think of two possible practical reasons - course ratings won't be finished for an earlier date or the software won't be ready - but that's entirely conjecture. I know what the WHS scheme is to be but not yet what the CONGU choices will be amongst the many options that will be available or what the timing is to be. I'll know more later this week after a Scottish Golf meeting.

> > My understanding is that rating is pretty well on but the delay is primarily re the system. Options for the Authorised Association to be finalised (matchplay was only eliminated on Thursday). Getting the WHS running and fully tested. Finalising the algorithm for the conversion of handicaps.

>

> Why only in UK?

Because the basic start point is different. eg the data that has been collected by the EGA or GA is not the same as the data collected by the USGA or CONGU. Different Authorities will choose different start date. Further, starting in the middle of a playing season is probably not the best idea.