New World Handicap System

[Colin L]

If the Course Handicap is calculated **without** the ( Course Rating - Par ) adjustment as in CONGU, it is true to say that the scratch player will never get any handicap strokes because zero divided by any number is zero.

Course Handicap

= 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113)

=0

 

But if the Course Handicap is calculated **with** the (Course Rating - Par) adjustment as in the USGA, then the scratch player will get strokes if there is a difference between Course Rating and Par. In Dave's example, there is a 2 stroke difference:

Course Handicap

= 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

= 0 + (74-72)

= 0 + 2

= 2

 

The USGA player will get a stroke at SI 1 and SI 2 and so on these holes his net double bogey value will be a stroke higher than his CONGU counterpart's can ever be and so his Score Differential would be affected if the NDB maximum had been activated. Consequently, his Handicap Index could be affected. But any differences arising in Handicap Indices between the two jurisdictions is what is being said by WHS research, I understand, to be insignificant.

 

 

 

[rogolf]

> @"Colin L" said:

> If the Course Handicap is calculated **without** the ( Course Rating - Par ) adjustment as in CONGU, it is true to say that the scratch player will never get any handicap strokes because zero divided by any number is zero.

> Course Handicap

> = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113)

> =0

>

> But if the Course Handicap is calculated **with** the (Course Rating - Par) adjustment as in the USGA, then the scratch player will get strokes if there is a difference between Course Rating and Par. In Dave's example, there is a 2 stroke difference:

> Course Handicap

> = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

> = 0 + (74-72)

> = 0 + 2

> = 2

>

> The USGA player will get a stroke at SI 1 and SI 2 and so on these holes his net double bogey value will be a stroke higher than his CONGU counterpart's can ever be and so his Score Differential would be affected if the NDB maximum had been activated. Consequently, his Handicap Index could be affected. But any differences arising in Handicap Indices between the two jurisdictions is what is being said by WHS research, I understand, to be insignificant.

>

>

>

 

To the best of my knowledge, the USGA does not use the "course rating - par" method.

[Newby]

> @"Colin L" said:

 

> Course Handicap

> = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

 

When I wrote that in a post earlier, someone asked if I had missed some brackets. I now see what they mean.

Should the formula be written as

 

= HI x ((Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par))

= 0 * (74-72)

= 0 * 2

= 0

 

Surely a scratch player is expected to play to the CR not Par on any and all courses

 

[Colin L]

> @rogolf said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > If the Course Handicap is calculated **without** the ( Course Rating - Par ) adjustment as in CONGU, it is true to say that the scratch player will never get any handicap strokes because zero divided by any number is zero.

> > Course Handicap

> > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113)

> > =0

> >

> > But if the Course Handicap is calculated **with** the (Course Rating - Par) adjustment as in the USGA, then the scratch player will get strokes if there is a difference between Course Rating and Par. In Dave's example, there is a 2 stroke difference:

> > Course Handicap

> > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

> > = 0 + (74-72)

> > = 0 + 2

> > = 2

> >

> > The USGA player will get a stroke at SI 1 and SI 2 and so on these holes his net double bogey value will be a stroke higher than his CONGU counterpart's can ever be and so his Score Differential would be affected if the NDB maximum had been activated. Consequently, his Handicap Index could be affected. But any differences arising in Handicap Indices between the two jurisdictions is what is being said by WHS research, I understand, to be insignificant.

> >

> >

> >

>

> To the best of my knowledge, the USGA does not use the "course rating - par" method.

 

I thought someone had said it would be, but this thread is taxing my remaining brain cells too much for me to be sure about anything.

[rogolf]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > If the Course Handicap is calculated **without** the ( Course Rating - Par ) adjustment as in CONGU, it is true to say that the scratch player will never get any handicap strokes because zero divided by any number is zero.

> > > Course Handicap

> > > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113)

> > > =0

> > >

> > > But if the Course Handicap is calculated **with** the (Course Rating - Par) adjustment as in the USGA, then the scratch player will get strokes if there is a difference between Course Rating and Par. In Dave's example, there is a 2 stroke difference:

> > > Course Handicap

> > > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

> > > = 0 + (74-72)

> > > = 0 + 2

> > > = 2

> > >

> > > The USGA player will get a stroke at SI 1 and SI 2 and so on these holes his net double bogey value will be a stroke higher than his CONGU counterpart's can ever be and so his Score Differential would be affected if the NDB maximum had been activated. Consequently, his Handicap Index could be affected. But any differences arising in Handicap Indices between the two jurisdictions is what is being said by WHS research, I understand, to be insignificant.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > To the best of my knowledge, the USGA does not use the "course rating - par" method.

>

> I thought someone had said it would be, but this thread is taxing my remaining brain cells too much for me to be sure about anything.

 

The USGA doesn't use it now, and I doubt that it will be adapted immediately. Isn't that an EGA formula?

[Halebopp]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

>

> > Course Handicap

> > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

>

> When I wrote that in a post earlier, someone asked if I had missed some brackets. I now see what they mean.

> Should the formula be written as

>

> = HI x ((Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par))

> = 0 * (74-72)

> = 0 * 2

> = 0

>

> Surely a scratch player is expected to play to the CR not Par on any and all courses

>

 

Your maths is even more confusing. :D

[Colin L]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

>

> > Course Handicap

> > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

>

> When I wrote that in a post earlier, someone asked if I had missed some brackets. I now see what they mean.

> Should the formula be written as

>

> = HI x ((Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par))

> = 0 *(74-72)

> = 0 * 2

> = 0

>

> Surely a scratch player is expected to play to the CR not Par on any and all courses

>

 

You've changed a plus sign in the first line to a multiplication sign in the second and third. If that were the formula, with a handicap index of 17 and a difference of 2 strokes between CR and Par, and a Slope Rating of 113, my Course Handicap would be 34!

 

The first line is correct and as I understand it, means that a scratch player would get strokes if there is a difference between course rating and par.

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Even more confused now (not a difficult task) but can someone explain just when which of these formulae may/should/must be used and why.

> >

> > 1) CH = H Index * (Slope/113) + (CR - Par)

> > 2) CH = H Index * (Slope/113)

>

>

>

> #2 is what you would use in 2019 in the US

>

> (I have NO idea why this is bold)

>

> In 2020 #2 will no longer be correct, and the correct calculation will be along the lines of #1, but (particularly how Par is used in this calculation) is less than clear to me.

>

> dave

>

I was pretty certain that someone had said that USGA would be using the CR-Par adjustment. Can this be definitively confirmed or refuted?

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > Even more confused now (not a difficult task) but can someone explain just when which of these formulae may/should/must be used and why.

> > >

> > > 1) CH = H Index * (Slope/113) + (CR - Par)

> > > 2) CH = H Index * (Slope/113)

> >

> >

> >

> > #2 is what you would use in 2019 in the US

> >

> > (I have NO idea why this is bold)

> >

> > In 2020 #2 will no longer be correct, and the correct calculation will be along the lines of #1, but (particularly how Par is used in this calculation) is less than clear to me.

> >

> > dave

> >

> I was pretty certain that someone had said that USGA would be using the CR-Par adjustment. Can this be definitively confirmed or refuted?

>

 

I got this in a private email from the handicap rep at the Carolina's Golf Association (USGA).

 

dave

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @rogolf said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > If the Course Handicap is calculated **without** the ( Course Rating - Par ) adjustment as in CONGU, it is true to say that the scratch player will never get any handicap strokes because zero divided by any number is zero.

> > Course Handicap

> > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113)

> > =0

> >

> > But if the Course Handicap is calculated **with** the (Course Rating - Par) adjustment as in the USGA, then the scratch player will get strokes if there is a difference between Course Rating and Par. In Dave's example, there is a 2 stroke difference:

> > Course Handicap

> > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

> > = 0 + (74-72)

> > = 0 + 2

> > = 2

> >

> > The USGA player will get a stroke at SI 1 and SI 2 and so on these holes his net double bogey value will be a stroke higher than his CONGU counterpart's can ever be and so his Score Differential would be affected if the NDB maximum had been activated. Consequently, his Handicap Index could be affected. But any differences arising in Handicap Indices between the two jurisdictions is what is being said by WHS research, I understand, to be insignificant.

> >

> >

> >

>

> To the best of my knowledge, the USGA does not use the "course rating - par" method.

 

I have been told that this will change in 2020 (from our state golf organization rep).

 

dave

[GaHack1]

T> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > Even more confused now (not a difficult task) but can someone explain just when which of these formulae may/should/must be used and why.

> > >

> > > 1) CH = H Index * (Slope/113) + (CR - Par)

> > > 2) CH = H Index * (Slope/113)

> >

> >

> >

> > #2 is what you would use in 2019 in the US

> >

> > (I have NO idea why this is bold)

> >

> > In 2020 #2 will no longer be correct, and the correct calculation will be along the lines of #1, but (particularly how Par is used in this calculation) is less than clear to me.

> >

> > dave

> >

> I was pretty certain that someone had said that USGA would be using the CR-Par adjustment. Can this be definitively confirmed or refuted?

>

 

Yes I can confirm that we just had our training last Monday from the GSGA. The CR-Par will be added to the calculation of CH. This will do away with the 3.5 adjustments for players playing from different tees.

[GaHack1]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> >

> > > Course Handicap

> > > = 0 x (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par)

> >

> > When I wrote that in a post earlier, someone asked if I had missed some brackets. I now see what they mean.

> > Should the formula be written as

> >

> > = HI x ((Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par))

> > = 0 *(74-72)

> > = 0 * 2

> > = 0

> >

> > Surely a scratch player is expected to play to the CR not Par on any and all courses

> >

>

> You've changed a plus sign in the first line to a multiplication sign in the second and third. If that were the formula, with a handicap index of 17 and a difference of 2 strokes between CR and Par, and a Slope Rating of 113, my Course Handicap would be 34!

>

> The first line is correct and as I understand it, means that a scratch player would get strokes if there is a difference between course rating and par.

Straight from the USGA handicap manual for the current calculation, the only change for 2020 is the +(CR-Par). In your example, you are multiplying the HI x the results of dividing the slope rating by 113 because of the parentheses. That is wrong it has never been done that way. You multiply the HI x Slope and then divide the results by 113 then you add the result of CR-Par.

 

Of course, it probably doesn't make any difference... I think the answer comes out the same.

 

 

Section 3

Course Handicap™ Explained

Q. What does a Course Handicap represent?

A. A Course Handicap represents the number of strokes needed to play to the level of a scratch golfer—or the Course Rating™ of a particular set of tees. A Course Handicap is expressed as a whole number (e.g. 12).

Course Handicap is determined by using charts located at the golf course where the round is to be played. In addition, a Course Handicap can be calculated by these methods:

 

Course Handicap Calculator:

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/calculator/course_handicap_calculator.asp

 

The USGA Handicap System Reference Guide:

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/Handi_Ref_Manual.pdf

 

Formula:

Handicap Index® multiplied by Slope Rating® of tees played, divided by Standard Slope Rating (113) = Answer (rounded to nearest whole number, .4 rounds down and .5 rounds up)

 

Example: 10.4 Handicap Index x 125 Slope Rating / 113 Standard Slope Rating = 11.5 = 12 Course Handicap

 

Please visit Sections 3-3 and 10-4 of the USGA Handicap System manual for further reference.

 

 

 

[GaHack1]

Probably more important than the NDB would be the new anti sandbagging parts of the WHS. The soft and hard caps and the exceptions score reduction to limit the upward movement of handicaps.

[Colin L]

Thanks for the confirmation.

 

_Straight from the USGA handicap manual for the current calculation, the only change for 2020 is the +(CR-Par). In your example, you are multiplying the HI x the results of dividing the slope rating by 113 because of the parentheses. **That is wrong it has never been done that way.** You multiply the HI x Slope and then divide the results by 113 then you add the result of CR-Par._

 

Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par) is how the formula you will be using in the USA is expressed in the WHS Draft Rules. You may never have done it that way, but it isn't **wrong**. In fact, it makes no difference to the outcome of the calculation because the brackets round Slope÷113 are not actually needed. I suspect they have been put there to make the connection between the Slope Rating of the course being played and 113 as the course rating of a course of standard relative difficulty. There is no difference in the result using any of these ways of expressing the formula:

 

CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

CH = HI x (SR ÷ 113) + (CR-Par)

CH =(HI x SR)÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[antip]

> @"Colin L" said:

> Thanks for the confirmation.

>

> _Straight from the USGA handicap manual for the current calculation, the only change for 2020 is the +(CR-Par). In your example, you are multiplying the HI x the results of dividing the slope rating by 113 because of the parentheses. **That is wrong it has never been done that way.** You multiply the HI x Slope and then divide the results by 113 then you add the result of CR-Par._

>

> Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par) is how the formula is expressed in the WHS Draft Rules. You may never have done it that way, but it isn't **wrong**. In fact, it makes no difference to the outcome of the calculation because the brackets round Slope÷113 are not actually needed. I suspect they have been put there to make the connection between the Slope Rating of the course being played and 113 as the course rating of a course of standard relative difficulty. There is no difference in the result using any of these ways of expressing the formula:

>

> CR = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

> CR = HI x (SR ÷ 113) + (CR-Par)

> CR =(HI x SR)÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

or CR =HI x SR÷ 113 + CR-Par

[rogolf]

> @antip said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > Thanks for the confirmation.

> >

> > _Straight from the USGA handicap manual for the current calculation, the only change for 2020 is the +(CR-Par). In your example, you are multiplying the HI x the results of dividing the slope rating by 113 because of the parentheses. **That is wrong it has never been done that way.** You multiply the HI x Slope and then divide the results by 113 then you add the result of CR-Par._

> >

> > Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par) is how the formula is expressed in the WHS Draft Rules. You may never have done it that way, but it isn't **wrong**. In fact, it makes no difference to the outcome of the calculation because the brackets round Slope÷113 are not actually needed. I suspect they have been put there to make the connection between the Slope Rating of the course being played and 113 as the course rating of a course of standard relative difficulty. There is no difference in the result using any of these ways of expressing the formula:

> >

> > CR = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

> > CR = HI x (SR ÷ 113) + (CR-Par)

> > CR =(HI x SR)÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> or CR =HI x SR÷ 113 + CR-Par

 

Based on those equations, where is the course handicap (CH)?

[antip]

> @rogolf said:

> > @antip said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > Thanks for the confirmation.

> > >

> > > _Straight from the USGA handicap manual for the current calculation, the only change for 2020 is the +(CR-Par). In your example, you are multiplying the HI x the results of dividing the slope rating by 113 because of the parentheses. **That is wrong it has never been done that way.** You multiply the HI x Slope and then divide the results by 113 then you add the result of CR-Par._

> > >

> > > Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope ÷ 113) + (Course Rating - Par) is how the formula is expressed in the WHS Draft Rules. You may never have done it that way, but it isn't **wrong**. In fact, it makes no difference to the outcome of the calculation because the brackets round Slope÷113 are not actually needed. I suspect they have been put there to make the connection between the Slope Rating of the course being played and 113 as the course rating of a course of standard relative difficulty. There is no difference in the result using any of these ways of expressing the formula:

> > >

> > > CR = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

> > > CR = HI x (SR ÷ 113) + (CR-Par)

> > > CR =(HI x SR)÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> > or CR =HI x SR÷ 113 + CR-Par

>

> Based on those equations, where is the course handicap (CH)?

 

The first CR is actually CH (I just followed Colin's model and showed that it makes no difference mathematically to remove every bracket).

[Colin L]

I've done it again!!! I wrote CR instead of CH and didn't notice it even with supposedly careful checking. Now edited with thanks. (I am notoriously poor at spotting errors on a screen despite being competent at proof-reading on paper.

 

I'm reminded of the story (probably apocraphyl) of the local weekly newspaper which reported on a spate of burglaries in its area:

_The investigation is being led by Defective Constable Alan Jones of the Wiltshire Police Force_.

 

The next week it printed the following correction:

_We apologise for last week's error in our report on the recent burglaries. It should have read, "The investigation is being led by Detective Constable Alan Jones of the Wiltshire Police Farce."_

[Augster]

What is the point of the addition of CR-par? Is it so scratch players get some shots on hard courses for stableford? Or do they just want everyone’s CH to go down so we all think we are better than we are and therefore play more golf?

 

For my home course, playing the whites, Currently I’m 6.5 index x 119 slope / 113. A CH of 7.

 

Once you add in my CR (69)- par (71), I go DOWN to a 5?

 

I get that it adjusts to -2 shots for everyone, but it’s going to absolutely suck for net skin Monday. Where I’ll only be getting 5 instead of 7.

[Halebopp]

> @Augster said:

> What is the point of the addition of CR-par? Is it so scratch players get some shots on hard courses for stableford? Or do they just want everyone’s CH to go down so we all think we are better than we are and therefore play more golf?

>

> For my home course, playing the whites, Currently I’m 6.5 index x 119 slope / 113. A CH of 7.

>

> Once you add in my CR (69)- par (71), I go DOWN to a 5?

>

> I get that it adjusts to -2 shots for everyone, but it’s going to absolutely suck for net skin Monday. Where I’ll only be getting 5 instead of 7.

 

Actually you'll look worse when CR is less than par and CH goes down but you keep shooting the same scores resulting in your exact handicap going up.

 

There are several good reasons for it:

 

* To remove the need to do any extra maths/adjustments when competing with people playing off different sets of tees or different gender.

* Like you said, make net Stableford scores the same for every course/set of tees - 36 points is your own "par", without the adjustment it could be 34 or 38 points, for example

* To show you how many strokes over/under par you need to play to play to your own par

 

Even the USGA used the CR to determine a Target Score

 


 

[Newby]

**Colin**

 

What do you make of the comment at the end of Rule 6?

 

_These recommendations are for competition purposes only_

 

Are there two issues here? Competition playing handicap and resultant handicap index calculations.

[Newby]

> @"Colin L" said:

There is no difference in the result using any of these ways of expressing the formula:

>

> CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

> CH = HI x (SR ÷ 113) + (CR-Par)

> CH =(HI x SR)÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

>

 

It would ensure that those who forgot their BODMAS if it was written as:

 

CH = (HI x SR ÷ 113) + (CR-Par)

[antip]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> There is no difference in the result using any of these ways of expressing the formula:

> >

> > CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

> > CH = HI x (SR ÷ 113) + (CR-Par)

> > CH =(HI x SR)÷ 113 + (CR-Par)

> >

>

> It would ensure that those who forgot their BODMAS if it was written as:

>

> CH = (HI x SR ÷ 113) + (CR-Par)

 

PEMDAS for those across the ditch.

[Colin L]

> @Newby said:

> **Colin**

>

> What do you make of the comment at the end of Rule 6?

>

> _These recommendations are for competition purposes only_

>

> Are there two issues here? Competition playing handicap and resultant handicap index calculations.

 

> @Newby said:

> **Colin**

>

> What do you make of the comment at the end of Rule 6?

>

> _These recommendations are for competition purposes only_

>

> Are there two issues here? Competition playing handicap and resultant handicap index calculations.

 

Sorry not to have replied earlier. I have my rules head on at the moment for.a 3 day tournament up in St Andrews and didn't bring the WHS rule book with me. I'll check it out when I get home tonight .... if I stay awake long enough.

[mark m]

Hi Gents,

 

To recap, here is my current understanding of what is coming. Please take a good look and let me/us know if this is correct?

Thank you for all the great info provided.

 

WHS = World Handicap System

HI = Handicap Index

CH = Course Handicap

CR = Course Rating

SR = Slope Rating

NDB = Net Double Bogey

ESC = Equitable Stroke Control

T = Tournament Score

 

 

**The new WHS calculation: CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR – Par)**

 

• Comment: Basically you will have “played to your handicap” if you shoot a net score of par. (Previously you “played to your handicap” if you shot a net score equal to the CR of the tees played.)

 

**Best 8 of 20 differentials will be used in the calculation. (Instead of 10 of 20)**

 

**ESC maximum hole scores for handicap purposes will be gone. It will be replaced by NDB maximum hole score**

 

• Question/comment: it sounds like hole handicap rankings may be changed/adjusted to a ranking based more on hole difficulty and less on other considerations which were more match play based?

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14403

 

Without substantially deviating from the above principles, allocating low-numbered strokes to holes near the end of each nine should be avoided so that players receiving strokes will have the opportunity to use these strokes before either nine or 18-hole matches are decided. Lower-numbered strokes should not be allocated to the first and second holes of a course in the event that a hole-by-hole playoff is necessary.

 

**Bonus for Excellence multiplier of .96 will no longer be used in the HI calculation.**

 

**Posting ‘T’ scores will no longer be an option. There will be a “memory of past performances” used in the calculation (if necessary)**

 

• Question: how far back does the “memory” go?

• I would like to see best differentials saved longer than 12 months. Hopefully at least 18 or 24 months.

 

At this point I am less concerned about daily adjustments to the ratings based on set-up and conditions. I assume it’s a rather complicated calculation based on what has been found to work well in other areas of the world.

 

Thanks again,

Mark

[Newby]

> @"mark m" said:

> Hi Gents,

>

> **The new WHS calculation: CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR – Par)**

> Mark

 

Only in certain parts of the world including the USA but not GB&I where it is **CH = HI x SR ÷ 113**

 

[mark m]

> @Newby said:

> > @"mark m" said:

> > Hi Gents,

> >

> > **The new WHS calculation: CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR – Par)**

> > Mark

>

> Only in certain parts of the world including the USA but not GB&I where it is **CH = HI x SR ÷ 113**

>

 

Yes. Thanks.

 

I cannot recall from your numerous posts over the years, is it policy in GB&I that all participants in net comps play from the same tee?

 

[Newby]

> @"mark m" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"mark m" said:

> > > Hi Gents,

> > >

> > > **The new WHS calculation: CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR – Par)**

> > > Mark

> >

> > Only in certain parts of the world including the USA but not GB&I where it is **CH = HI x SR ÷ 113**

> >

>

> Yes. Thanks.

>

> I cannot recall from your numerous posts over the years, is it policy in GB&I that all participants in net comps play from the same tee?

>

Mixed tee & mixed gender are not that common but the rules (and the software) make provision for them.

[GaHack1]

> @"mark m" said:

> Hi Gents,

>

> To recap, here is my current understanding of what is coming. Please take a good look and let me/us know if this is correct?

> Thank you for all the great info provided.

>

> WHS = World Handicap System

> HI = Handicap Index

> CH = Course Handicap

> CR = Course Rating

> SR = Slope Rating

> NDB = Net Double Bogey

> ESC = Equitable Stroke Control

> T = Tournament Score

>

>

> **The new WHS calculation: CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR – Par)**

>

> • Comment: Basically you will have “played to your handicap” if you shoot a net score of par. (Previously you “played to your handicap” if you shot a net score equal to the CR of the tees played.)

>

> **Best 8 of 20 differentials will be used in the calculation. (Instead of 10 of 20)**

>

> **ESC maximum hole scores for handicap purposes will be gone. It will be replaced by NDB maximum hole score**

>

> • Question/comment: it sounds like hole handicap rankings may be changed/adjusted to a ranking based more on hole difficulty and less on other considerations which were more match play based?

>

> https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14403

>

> Without substantially deviating from the above principles, allocating low-numbered strokes to holes near the end of each nine should be avoided so that players receiving strokes will have the opportunity to use these strokes before either nine or 18-hole matches are decided. Lower-numbered strokes should not be allocated to the first and second holes of a course in the event that a hole-by-hole playoff is necessary.

>

> **Bonus for Excellence multiplier of .96 will no longer be used in the HI calculation.**

>

> **Posting ‘T’ scores will no longer be an option. There will be a “memory of past performances” used in the calculation (if necessary)**

>

> • Question: how far back does the “memory” go?

> • I would like to see best differentials saved longer than 12 months. Hopefully at least 18 or 24 months.

>

> At this point I am less concerned about daily adjustments to the ratings based on set-up and conditions. I assume it’s a rather complicated calculation based on what has been found to work well in other areas of the world.

>

> Thanks again,

> Mark

 

In the US it will be 12 months' memory of your lowest index, not differentials. Two uses of this will be the Soft and Hard cap. The Soft Cap will suppress upward movement by 50% after a 3.0 stroke increase over the Low Handicap Index has been reached. The Hard Cap will restrict upward movement to 5.0 strokes over the Low Handicap Index. The Low Handicap Index is what has been achieved by a golfer within the last 12 months.

 

The Exceptional Score Reduction will take into consideration all scores instead of just tournament scores. This procedure will come into play when a golfer's score differential is -7.0 strokes or better than his/her Handicap Index from when the round was played. The adjustment will be either -1.0 (for 7.0 to 9.9) or -2.0 (for 10 or more) adjustment to their previous 20 score differentials. This will be for all scores, not just tournament scores.

 

 

[GaHack1]

> @Newby said:

> > @"mark m" said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > > @"mark m" said:

> > > > Hi Gents,

> > > >

> > > > **The new WHS calculation: CH = HI x SR ÷ 113 + (CR – Par)**

> > > > Mark

> > >

> > > Only in certain parts of the world including the USA but not GB&I where it is **CH = HI x SR ÷ 113**

> > >

> >

> > Yes. Thanks.

> >

> > I cannot recall from your numerous posts over the years, is it policy in GB&I that all participants in net comps play from the same tee?

> >

> Mixed tee & mixed gender are not that common but the rules (and the software) make provision for them.

 

Almost every tournament we have at our course is mixed tee.