New World Handicap System

[ThinkingPlus]

The 0.95 factor is applied to a Course Handicap in order to convert it to a Playing Handicap for stroke play. The match play factor is 1.0 and other formats of play get different factors. Most folks for casual play don't bother with the 0.95 factor.

[Mudguard]

I didn't even realise there were handicaps for match and strokeplay under WHS. I'll have to have a look and see if that is being applied here.

Edit. Our current takes best 10 of 20 and applies 96% of that.

New is 8 out of 20 and has no percentage.

[DaveLeeNC]

I don't understand the rationale for your second sentence of 'not needing to apply anything', but if you are an 11.7 (index) and playing on a course with a slope of greater than 120, then your course handicap is 13. And if the slope is greater than 133 then your CH is 14 (unless the slope is 141 or more and it is then 15). And this all assumes that either CR = Par or your jurisdiction is not using the CR-Par adjustment.

dave

[DFinch]

The .95 is applied for competition/larger fields as a statistical leveler that affects high handicaps more than low handicaps because it's a percentage, which according to the USGA more accurately levels the field depending on format played. Appendix C: Handicap Allowances

[Mudguard]

I understand that. I meant in the context of a match. You'd both look up your handicap based on the index, choose your tee, see what handicap it gives you.

[Mudguard]

Ah that's interesting. I've never seen it applied locally (New Zealand). I would say full handicap is used for everything except an ambrose (scramble) here.

[Newby]

I assume the extract above (re allowances) was taken from the USGA manual. It is exactly the same in the CONGU draft.

[DaveLeeNC]

Not sure that it matters, but typically in my experience (regarding match play) the steps are reversed where you choose your tees and then determine the relevant Playing Handicap #'s. But I suspect that you are making a point that I don't understand.

dave

[nsxguy]

Couple of questions.

I am in SE Asia right now. Pre-WHS, which is not in effect yet, most(?) visiting golfers who didn't just play with their 3 buddies, went to a "golf bar" and played with that bar using their home handicaps. However, each bar used whatever handicap system they wanted to. One bar I played at uses CONGU. Start with your home handicap as the base and go on from there with ONLY scores made with their bar. The other bar I played with uses the local sports club's handicap system which was the same as the USGA, 10 out of last 20 differentials, etc. The only difference the local sports club had was they revised once a week, late Saturday night, as opposed to the USGA's twice a month.

Today, at home (Florida USA), the WHS is in effect and my 'cap, due to a health issue hit the soft cap and was at 9.1. The CONGU bar, where I last played 2 years ago told me they knew me and I was welcome to come back as a 9 (even though I'd left 2 years ago as a 4). The 2nd bar simply accepts your current home handicap so my 9.1 was accepted there as well.

1) Being these 2 bars are literally 2 blocks from one another is there any requirement for them to be using the incoming WHS when it is instituted here later this year ? The CONGU bar hasn't told me what they're going to do when CONGU "goes away" and WHS is intituted in the country. Then again, they have all the software. Is there anything to prevent them from doing what they do now and only use CONGU and only use scores from their bar ? I guess they can do whatever they and their players agree to do, no ?

2) Since the courses here are rated with slope I enter all my scores into GHIN and it now gets updated every round. At first I used whatever GHIN was on the day I played and then I remembered that here, under the "presiding" body for the other bar (the 1 that used USGA), revises once a week on Saturday night. So then I started noting my 'cap on Sunday morning and using that same cap for the week. Only NOW I realized that my WHS cap is 8 out of 20 where the local authority, still using the old USGA, is 10 out of 20.

I suppose I have to recalculate my cap using the best last TEN or 20 AND multiply by .96 at the end to come up with the local body's formula to play with that bar, yes ?

[Colin L]

I have a language difficulty here!

Other than the obvious where you have a beer after a game, what's a "golf bar" and how do you "play with it"?

[nsxguy]

Sorry.

A "golf bar" is a bar/restaurant that organizes golf competitions, often for both residents and visitors.

[Newby]

Presumably the two bars are not registered with any handicap authority. There isre fore no need to change from their policy of 'doing their own thing'.

However, it does seem that they are keen to run a formal handicap regime. But the CONGU software will not be supported for long (if support was ever needed). *

Is it possible for either the bar clubs to register with the local authority (or players to register a la the USA way with a pseudo club) and all use the WHS?The all players would use whatever their then current WHS cap is from all scores returned anywhere.

Who is the current CONGU software supplier and is the bar club using a 'Society' edition or is it registered with the local national authority. If the latter, the CONGU supplier may offer a CONGU to WHS conversion.

[AirTime23]

As a player and admin in a country not yet taking part in the new WHS I have a couple of questions:

does playing handicap/handicap allowance only refer to adjusting the handicaps for a competition in contrast to being used for actual handicap calculation (never heard of this before)?is there a document describing what the 'menu items' are for the individual associations to choose from?We have a meeting with our association coming up next week and it would be nice to being able to ask them some informed questions ;)

So far in Germany only tournament rounds and pre-round registered Extra-Day-Scores were acceptable for handicap purposes and it doesn't seem to me that this will change with the new WHS.

 

[davep043]

The two terms Playing Handicap and Course Handicap are new this year. The Course Handicap is what I'd call the "basic" number for a specific player on a specific course and tee. The Course Handicap will be used to determine the maximum hole score (net double bogey), and the net par if used for holes not played (incomplete rounds that are still posted). The Playing Handicap is the Course Handicap, modified for the specific competition being played.

As for the menu of options, I can't say I've seen it. A few items I'm aware of are the selection of what types of scores will be included for handicap calculation, a requirement for formal pre-registration for casual rounds, attestation of scores, and whether the Course Handicap calculation will include (CR-Par). I'm sure there are a few more items

[Newby]

Just to expand on davep043's comments.The Playing Handicap is the Course Handicap, modified by the Handicap Allowance for the specific format of competition being played. eg the Handicap Allowance of 95% for individual stroke play or 90% for fourball match play.

The Course Handicap is used as the basis of the Adjusted Gross Score when determining the Score Differential for score recording and post round handicap calculation. The Playing Handicap is in effect only used for competition purposes

The 'menu items' have not been published except to the technical teams from each authority. My impression is that they are trying to keep them out of the public domain until all authorities are up and running and there will be less argument from players as to "why aren't/are we doing 'x', they are/aren't". I also get an impression that some were/are still being negotiated very late in the day.

[nsxguy]

'Newby, I realize that you are simply the messenger here so this is not directed at you. But this makes almost ZERO sense.In the WHS it is the CR-Par adjustment that keeps Stableford points at 36 equal to shooting your handicap.In #2 they said "Where a player then loses allowance strokes because Par is a lot higher than Rating (especially for multiple tee scenarios) they think they've reached NDB a lot sooner than they have, and they pick up. Whereas they should have played out to their CH and so could lose themselves some shots". When Par is much higher than CR you DO pick sooner than before because your CH is lower. What are they talking about here?In #3 they said "Due to rounding, the strokes received can be distorted when the allowance factors in CR-P. Examples show 2 'scratch' golfers, say 0.2 and 0.3, and one has to give the other a shot in matchplay. Or players in a mixed tee event". So somehow a 0.5 index golfer getting a stroke from a 0.4 index without the CR-Par is not a problem?. All CR-Par does (same tees) is move the point at which round off changes things. It does not add (or subtract) that effect."

 

 

I was looking for something else and got back to this post which I intended to respond to earlier but forgot. I also see that Newby didn't address this post of yours.

#3 - IIRC the quotes are from the UK where CONGU has been (and still is at the moment) in effect for a looooooong time and they are grappling with understanding the WHS changes. THEIR .2 and .3 competitors would no doubt(?) play even. But here in the USA and soon to be in the UK they will be calculating a CH which, depending on slope, could have a .2 with a CH of 0 and a .3 with a CH of 1 thereby the higher HI getting a shot when, for all intents and purposes they are the same player. As well, the (CR-PAR) could also influence the calc by .1 making the "same" 2 golfers a stroke apart.

 

#2 - This is the reason I went looking, the addition of (CR-PAR) to the CH which it sound like the UK will NOT(?) implement. This seems to be another rather large change to understanding WHS by CONGU players.

I don't recall it being mentioned but for NDB (Net Double Bogey) purposes of reducing a gross score, formerly known as ESC here in the States, the CH determines how many holes a player will use to (possibly) decrease his gross score under NDB.You said "When Par is much higher than CR you DO pick sooner than before because your CH is lower. What are they talking about here?"

I think what they're referring to, unless I've missed something yet again, is that say, playing from the senior tees, where this (CR-PA) will be much more obvious, a 16 HI, without (CR-PAR) could have a CH of 16 and take off a shot over DB on each of stroke holes 1-16.

However, if (CR-PAR) IS implemented and the course rating is, say 67 from the senior tees, that same player has a CH of only 11. This means that on holes 12-16, where without the (CR-PAR) adjustment he would get to take a triple, he now doesn't "get" a stroke for NDB. So he's limited to DB and is losing the opportunity to make a triple and have it count towards his gross.

Not only that but for Stableford points he'll have 5 fewer stroke holes so 5 fewer points. I realize that ALL competitors will have the exact same scenario so the difference in final scores will be the same for everybody (as will the strokes reduced for NDB purposes) but it's going to be quite a surprise, especially in the beginning.

The guy (described) who used to win with 39 points will now win with 34 points. Culture shock ? LOL

 

Or have I got this all bollocks up ? Again ? Dave ? H-E-L-P. LMAO

 

[Newby]

I'm afraid I can't help. As I think you know, CONGU is not using (CR-Par) so haven't got involved in understating what is supposed to do.

I did make enquiries with our technical team but was discouraged from digging as they thought it was of no use to us. They did give me a sort of explanation as to why and I read some of the stuff you posted above but couldn't understand a word or follow the reasoning, so have just decided to ignore it.

 

[nsxguy]

Yeah, I get that you didn't understand it - no doubt because you're not actually close to using WHS.

That's also why I responded to Dave's post, trying to give what I think is clarification where he didn't understand the CONGU objections/questions.

[DaveLeeNC]

@nsxguy I don't see any factual errors in your analysis.
dave

[Newby]

Although we play a fair number of stableford comps we do tend to look at our performance related to the course difficulty (adjusted Standard Scratch Score SSS in CONGU terms) not stableford points. SSS is/was the same as USGA Course Rating.

The difference in approach may be explained by the way we currently handle our version of PCC (this adjustment is added to the CR/SSS after the event, to produce the CSS (Competition Scratch Score) which is the real test for performance). Par is only used to determine where strokes are given in stableford. So we are very familiar with the idea of 36 points not always meaning playing to course difficulty.

The addition of Slope is really good for CONGU because it now means the 'difficulty' is related to the player's ability not an anonymous scratch player's ability

[Deceptively Short]

I note that England Golf have now confirmed that they will only be going back to January 2018 for the player records for allocation of initial handicap under WHS on 2nd November.

Given the enforced break from golf and a necessary dramatically reduced season this year, this means that initial handicaps will be in a lot of cases calculated on less than 20.

I just ran a report of golfers at our club and a majority had not completed 20 since Jan 2018, of course there was a sizeable minority who have played considerably more. I know the formula for initial handicap allocation will be used but there will be some interesting first handicaps under WHS.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

I am curious as to how they are going to do that. Re-calculating differentials based on Course Rating and Slope #'s that didn't exist at the time (but could be 'back applied') sounds simple. But the NDB Rule would seem to be an issue here. Is the assumption that all previously posted scores were posted by hole?

My initial reaction was that if you didn't have 20 posted rounds total in 2018 and 2019, then you are a pretty casual golfer. Then I realized that there are probably golfers who play almost every day but (in 2018/19) rarely generated a postable score in the handicap system in place in England on the date of play.

Thanks for the info.

dave

[Deceptively Short]

NDB was in place under CONGU. In essence all gross scores were calculated to a Stableford basis and if you scored NDB or higher it just counted as 0 Stableford points. If your score benefitted from this it stated Stableford adjusted score alongside. So from that standpoint the calculations are simple.

Backdating the slope and course rating data must be the real challenge, hence they are only going back 2 years, to make the task manageable.

As you say many play very often but not that often in singles stroke play competitions which in reality are the only qualifying scores for the calculation.

 

[Shilgy]

Two ways of looking at this. One would be as you did a couple posts above, that less than 20 scores does not give a true handicap. The second would be the idea that your handicap is supposed to be a measure of your ability. Scores from over two years ago are hardly a good measure of that.

[nsxguy]

Excellent points. Especially about the 2 years ago round(s) not necessarily representing current ability.

Frankly, if someone only has 20 post-able scores or less in 2 FULL seasons, if I were England Golf, I wouldn't worry all that much about them either.

And there are formulas for X best rounds out of X rounds. If they don't care enough to play more than 10 post-able rounds per year they can live with the "less than true"(?) handicap.

[Newby]

All CONGU scores are posted hole by hole.

 

[Deceptively Short]

Don’t forget that a postable round is a score from a competition, how many players in GHIN have many more than 10 competition (singles strokeplay) scores per year in their record? Should they be ‘not worried about’?

[nsxguy]

That's an excellent point but aren't pretty much all rounds played with the "club" "comp rounds" ? As opposed to casual rounds played,,,,,, wherever/whenever ?

Point being that I don't really know how much work it takes by them to go back further but 2 seasons ought to be enough for the vast majority to have their last 20 rounds considered. If someone ends up with 10 or so and has their handicap a bit different by 3(?) out of 10 instead of 8 out of 20 I guess I'd be OK with it.

But maybe that's just me.

[Philomathesq]

I apologize if this has been covered already, but I'm too lazy to read through all 63 pages of this thread.

A good friend of mine who I know to be a decent, but very inconsistent golfer, recently began fully playing by the rules in order to obtain and maintain a handicap. Based on my experiences playing with him, I'd guess he is generally a bogey golfer, with some days where he looks like he can't make less than a 6 on any given hole and other days where he looks like a guy that can easily break 85 regularly.

He has played four rounds since his handicap journey began. His adjusted gross scores, slopes, and course ratings are: 116/135/69.8; 104/133/71.1; 81/132/71; and 89/132/71. I've done the math and his differentials for each round are: 38.7, 28.0, 8.6, and 15.4. Despite his average index being just over 22, GHIN has calculated his current handicap as 7.6 (I have verified this is accurate... if less than 5 scores are posted, the H.I. is the lowest index posted minus 1). However, this seems patently unfair, as there is no way my friend is a single-digit capper at this point. He may get there at some point, but I highly suspect his next round will be in the high 90's, if not higher. Even assuming he scores 100+ for his next four rounds, the highest his handicap will get is 12. While I don't think he has any plans to play in competitions between now and then, we do use H.I. in our money games when we play, and our general rule is that we go strictly by what GHIN says so that we don't run into any issues.

Has anyone else run into this issue yet, and if so, how have you handled it? Also, for those in the know, have there been any talks about changing the formula to apply only after a 10 rounds have been logged, instead of 3? I understand one of the goals of the new system is to provide people with H.I.'s sooner, but if it locks someone into an unfair/unrepresentative H.I. for 10 rounds, that seems like more of a detriment than anything else.

[SNIPERBBB]

Handicap is a measure of potential.

Its just a system, nothing is ever fair. The guys that that are hot/cold and rarely split the difference will always be impossible to give a so called fair cap.

Play more rounds and it'll even out.

 

My position is the ANGC position of if you know each other's game, you don't need caps, just negotiate the strokes. GHIN should be for multiple groups or playing with strangers.