New World Handicap System

[davep043]

> @denkea said:

>

> The above was copied and pasted from the USGA pdf for the World Handicap System. Can someone enlighten me as to the 90% handicap allowance referred to in the above??? I don't see where it is in the USGA manual. Or if it even is.

>

 

Under the current USGA Handicap Manual, the term Handicap Allowance is used to indicate the handicap used for a specific type of competition format. Many formats of competition are played at full handicap, but for some of them the Course Handicap is reduced. For example, in Fourball Stroke Play, men receive 90% of the Course Handicap, women receive 95% of the Course Handicap. This is 9-4b(ii). Based on the poster you showed, I'm going to assume the same terminology will remain in place under the new system.

[DaveLeeNC]

I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

 

Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

 

It just seems an odd decision to me.

 

dave

[Newby]

~~Colin confirmed earlier that the CONGU nations have all agreed on ~~

~~"Course Handicap = Handicap Index × (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating – Par)"~~

 

IGNORE THE NONSENSE ABOVE

[Colin L]

> @Newby said:

> Colin confirmed earlier that the CONGU nations have all agreed on

> "Course Handicap = Handicap Index × (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating – Par)"

 

Help! No he didn't!

 

He confirmed that Course Rating - Par will be used for calculating the Course Handicap for **9 hole rounds** . There Is no change to 18 hole rounds: we will not be using CR-Par.

 

The formula is

9 Hole Course Handicap = (Handicap Index÷2) x (9 hole Slope Rating ÷113) + (9 hole Course Rating - 9 hole Par).

 

I can only conjecture that the decision not to use CR-Par was much to do with minimising change at a time of major change.

 

I understand that the later decision to use CR-Par for 9 hole rounds was the result of finding from number-crunching that it produced a more consistent outcome in terms of course handicaps.

[Newby]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > Colin confirmed earlier that the CONGU nations have all agreed on

> > "Course Handicap = Handicap Index × (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating – Par)"

>

> Help! No he didn't!

>

> He confirmed that Course Rating - Par will be used for calculating the Course Handicap for **9 hole rounds** . There Is no change to 18 hole rounds: we will not be using CR-Par.

>

**Sorry, sorry.**

 

I completely missed your references to 9 holes

 

[rogolf]

What a confusing situation!! Why not change everything at once and start from square one instead of a step behind? Maybe just wanting to be different and authoritative??

[Newby]

I have an England Golf meeting on Monday. I hope to find out more.

[Colin L]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @Newby said:

> > > Colin confirmed earlier that the CONGU nations have all agreed on

> > > "Course Handicap = Handicap Index × (Slope Rating ÷ 113) + (Course Rating – Par)"

> >

> > Help! No he didn't!

> >

> > He confirmed that Course Rating - Par will be used for calculating the Course Handicap for **9 hole rounds** . There Is no change to 18 hole rounds: we will not be using CR-Par.

> >

> **Sorry, sorry.**

>

> I completely missed your references to 9 holes

>

 

The WHS messes with minds

 

[Colin L]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

>

> Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

>

> It just seems an odd decision to me.

>

> dave

 

The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

 

I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

 

If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> >

> > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> >

> > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> >

> > dave

>

> The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

>

> I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

>

> If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

>

>

 

In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> >

> > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> >

> > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> >

> > dave

>

> The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

>

> I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

>

> If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

>

>

 

This was my error. Your maximum hole scores will simply be (somewhat) different than it is in the rest of the world. I guess I am still having trouble adjusting to that concept in a WORLD Handicap System.

 

I still find Congu being out there alone in this regard kind of odd. OTOH, a whole bunch of my 'even older than me' high handicap buddies may decide to move to the UK just to get the extra 4 or 5 strokes :)

 

dave

[Newby]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

 

> I still find Congu being out there alone in this regard kind of odd. OTOH, a whole bunch of my 'even older than me' high handicap buddies may decide to move to the UK just to get the extra 4 or 5 strokes :)

>

> dave

 

Do you know what the other national authorities are doing? Canada, Australia, South Africa, countries in Asia, South America et al

Does anyone know if different countries in the EGA are going their own way?

[Colin L]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > >

> > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > >

> > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> >

> > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> >

> > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> >

> >

>

> In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

 

I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

 

Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

 

 

[antip]

> @Newby said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

>

> > I still find Congu being out there alone in this regard kind of odd. OTOH, a whole bunch of my 'even older than me' high handicap buddies may decide to move to the UK just to get the extra 4 or 5 strokes :)

> >

> > dave

>

> Do you know what the other national authorities are doing? Canada, Australia, South Africa, countries in Asia, South America et al

> Does anyone know if different countries in the EGA are going their own way?

 

Changes in Australia will be relatively few as the last decade has embedded many of the features that are part of the WHS (Slope; 8 from 20 etc). The more practical 2020 change at the coal face will be a further tweak to the daily handicap for any difference between scratch rating and par. For anyone that wants to knock themselves out further:

https://www.golf.org.au/world-handicap-system

https://www.golf.org.au/ckfinder/userfiles/files/WHS_%20Full%20set%20of%20regulations%20for%20Australia%20(updated%2023-4-2019).pdf

[Augster]

Cool. So Australia is keeping the .93 adjustment. Seems odd.

 

No match play scores either. Which I like and don’t like. I’d like to post singles match play, and not post fourball match play. Nothing about fourball match play compares to medal play, which is what they seem to want your cap to be based on.

[Newby]

> @Augster said:

> Cool. So Australia is keeping the .93 adjustment. Seems odd.

>

 

_The 0.93 Multiplier will be transferred out of the GA Handicap calculation and into the Daily Handicap calculation.

(As a result, a GA Handicap will be calculated simply by averaging the best 8 of a player’s most recent 20 results.)_

 

EDIT: I thought that 0.93 was universal in the PCC but I can't now find where I had seen the full calculation formula for the PCC

[Colin L]

> @Augster said:

> Cool. So Australia is keeping the .93 adjustment. Seems odd.

 

This does seem odd and somewhat bewildering. There is no "0.93 adjustment" in _Rule 6.1 Course Handicap Calculation_ or _Rule 6.2 Playing Handicap Calculation_ - or anywhere else in the WHS Rules that I can see. It does not seem to appear as an available option for individual authorities.

 

As usual, I wonder what I am missing - a large number of brain cells, did I hear someone say?

 

 

[denkea]

> @davep043 said:

> > @denkea said:

> >

> > The above was copied and pasted from the USGA pdf for the World Handicap System. Can someone enlighten me as to the 90% handicap allowance referred to in the above??? I don't see where it is in the USGA manual. Or if it even is.

> >

>

> Under the current USGA Handicap Manual, the term Handicap Allowance is used to indicate the handicap used for a specific type of competition format. Many formats of competition are played at full handicap, but for some of them the Course Handicap is reduced. For example, in Fourball Stroke Play, men receive 90% of the Course Handicap, women receive 95% of the Course Handicap. This is 9-4b(ii). Based on the poster you showed, I'm going to assume the same terminology will remain in place under the new system.

 

Ah ha! Got it. Thank you.

 

You too Sawgrass. Thanks

 

 

 

 

[Newby]

> @denkea said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @denkea said:

> > >

> > > The above was copied and pasted from the USGA pdf for the World Handicap System. Can someone enlighten me as to the 90% handicap allowance referred to in the above??? I don't see where it is in the USGA manual. Or if it even is.

> > >

> >

> > Under the current USGA Handicap Manual, the term Handicap Allowance is used to indicate the handicap used for a specific type of competition format. Many formats of competition are played at full handicap, but for some of them the Course Handicap is reduced. For example, in Fourball Stroke Play, men receive 90% of the Course Handicap, women receive 95% of the Course Handicap. This is 9-4b(ii). Based on the poster you showed, I'm going to assume the same terminology will remain in place under the new system.

>

> Ah ha! Got it. Thank you.

>

> You too Sawgrass. Thanks

>

These adjustments are for competition purposes only. Not for differential calculation for handicap records.

 

 

[Sawgrass]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > > >

> > > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > > >

> > > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> > >

> > > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> > >

> > > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

>

> I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

>

> Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

>

>

 

And I understand what you're saying, and have no written reference for the future in this regard.

 

While my having to keep both a course handicap and playing handicap in mind when playing today is a touch more complicated (a Max hole score would otherwise go down from a 7 to a db if I'm a 10 with a one stroke adjustment to a 9) my preference for doing things the old (more complicated) way is that I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

[Shilgy]

Sawgrass, we had the same issue recently in our weekly MGA game. Because players are playing different tees we adjust the longer than the “base” tee appropriately based on course rating. If a 8 handicap plays tees that make him a 10 FOR THAT COMP can he then take a 7 on a hole for handicap rather than being limited to a double bogey? To let him take a 7 would be similar to letting him take a 7 if he played a +2 or better in match play and getting ten shots.

[Colin L]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > > > >

> > > > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > > > >

> > > > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > dave

> > > >

> > > > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> > > >

> > > > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> > > >

> > > > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

> >

> > I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

> >

> > Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

> >

> >

>

> And I understand what you're saying, and have no written reference for the future in this regard.

>

> While my having to keep both a course handicap and playing handicap in mind when playing today is a touch more complicated (a Max hole score would otherwise go down from a 7 to a db if I'm a 10 with a one stroke adjustment to a 9) my preference for doing things the old (more complicated) way is that I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

 

The written reference I am going by is the Draft WHS Rules.

 

I think this will be the third time I've said it in this thread: the Research Group of WHS has done work on the matter and concluded that the effect on handicapping is minimal - a matter of possibly a decimal point or two on a Handicap Index. Dave's "even older" mates should save their air fare.

 

 

 

[Newby]

> @Sawgrass said:

 

> I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

 

What has a handicap allowance of 80 or 90% got to do with (CR- Par) ?

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dave

> > > > >

> > > > > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> > > > >

> > > > > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

> > >

> > > I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

> > >

> > > Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > And I understand what you're saying, and have no written reference for the future in this regard.

> >

> > While my having to keep both a course handicap and playing handicap in mind when playing today is a touch more complicated (a Max hole score would otherwise go down from a 7 to a db if I'm a 10 with a one stroke adjustment to a 9) my preference for doing things the old (more complicated) way is that I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

>

> The written reference I am going by is the Draft WHS Rules.

>

> I think this will be the third time I've said it in this thread: the Research Group of WHS has done work on the matter and concluded that the effect on handicapping is minimal - a matter of possibly a decimal point or two on a Handicap Index. Dave's "even older" mates should save their air fare.

>

>

>

 

My even older golf buddies won't care much about the new max score calculation. What they are not going to like is losing 3-5 strokes because of the new CH calculation.

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > @"Colin L" said:

> > > > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > > I find Congu's choice for CH to be surprising. I am not sure what the advantages are in this case to going their own way regarding CR-Par adjustments.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Everyone is going to have to be aware of two different CH values. Even if you post hole by hole, for the case of CR >Par, you need to know your posting CH so you know when to 'stop' (Stableford scoring being the obvious example here). If you are playing with a 'Congu CH' of 10 on a course of par 72 and CR of 74, what happens if you post a '6x' on the 11 handicap hole (par 4) where your actual max score is 7?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It just seems an odd decision to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > dave

> > > > >

> > > > > The WHS rules allow Authorised Associations a free choice whether to calculate Course Handicaps using CR-Par or not. CONGU makes its choice. What's odd about that?

> > > > >

> > > > > I don't understand what you mean by having to everyone is _going to have to be aware of two different CH values_.

> > > > >

> > > > > If I play 18 holes, I will look up a chart to find out my Course Handicap for an 18 hole round. I'll adjust that if there is a Handicap Allowance and find out the number of strokes I get. I'll apply these strokes according to the Stroke Index and will know for any hole what my net double bogey is. If I play 9 holes. I'll do exactly the same except I'll be looking up the chart for a 9 hole round. I'm not understanding the difficulty.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > In USGA-land, at least as of now, the reduction in handicap strokes due to competition allowance does not also apply to the maximum score one can post. Your ESC score is based on your full handicap. That concept remains solid in my mind, and I believe it will/should remain next year.

> > >

> > > I understand what you are saying but under WHS rules your maximum score at any hole is a Net Double Bogey which is "Par + 2 +any handicap stroke applied at that hole". I have seen nothing in the Rules to say that where a Handicap Allowance alters your Course Handicap so that your Playing Handicap is a stroke less, you have to apply the missing stroke when reckoning what your net double bogey is at one particular hole. Your Playing Handicap is what it is and determines the holes at which you get a stroke - no more, no less - which in turn determines your net double bogey. That's how it reads.

> > >

> > > Handicap Allowances whether a percentage reduction or an increase in a mixed tee game are for competition purposes only, but the calculation of the Score Differential makes no mention of removing their potential effect on a maximum score. I don't see how it could since whether or not there would be an effect is entirely unpredictable.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > And I understand what you're saying, and have no written reference for the future in this regard.

> >

> > While my having to keep both a course handicap and playing handicap in mind when playing today is a touch more complicated (a Max hole score would otherwise go down from a 7 to a db if I'm a 10 with a one stroke adjustment to a 9) my preference for doing things the old (more complicated) way is that I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

>

> The written reference I am going by is the Draft WHS Rules.

>

> I think this will be the third time I've said it in this thread: the Research Group of WHS has done work on the matter and concluded that the effect on handicapping is minimal - a matter of possibly a decimal point or two on a Handicap Index. Dave's "even older" mates should save their air fare.

>

>

>

 

Regarding the thought that the referenced research means that the differing max score calculations between Congu and most of the rest of the world is unimportant.

 

We have no idea what exactly the conclusion means. What data did they look at? What are the results at a more detailed level? In my experience high handicappers take ESC a couple times every round. And they are the ones likely to be playing holes where CR-Par is larger. What does this mean for them vs. the low handicapper? And what does "effect on handicapping is minimal " mean. What are the characteristics of golfers for whom this difference is not minimal.

 

Just a statement that 'you said that they said it is minimal' is not going to make this issue go away.

 

dave

 

 

[Deceptively Short]

Also if the difference is minimal why is CONGU deciding to be different on an issue that is not ‘cultural’. Some explanation might help.

[Sawgrass]

> @Shilgy said:

> Sawgrass, we had the same issue recently in our weekly MGA game. Because players are playing different tees we adjust the longer than the “base” tee appropriately based on course rating. If a 8 handicap plays tees that make him a 10 FOR THAT COMP can he then take a 7 on a hole for handicap rather than being limited to a double bogey? To let him take a 7 would be similar to letting him take a 7 if he played a +2 or better in match play and getting ten shots.

 

> @Newby said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

>

> > I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

>

> What has a handicap allowance of 80 or 90% got to do with (CR- Par) ?

 

Newby, here I am discussing 2019 handicap rules where there is no CR-Par.

 

Shilgy, here is the segment of the current handicap manual which supports my contention that the 8 cap converted to a 10 in your competition should only take DB for ESC purposes, it's from section 4.3:

 

Example 3: A player with a Handicap Index of 25.4 and a Course Handicap of 28 might enter a competition in which players are competing from different tees. The difference between the higher-rated set of tees (a USGA Course Rating of 73.0) and the lower-rated set of tees (a USGA Course Rating of 71.2) is 2 strokes (73.0-71.2=1.8 rounded to 2). From the course with the USGA Course Rating of 73.0, the player would receive two additional strokes, which would give the player a Course Handicap of 30 (see Decision 3-5/1 for the only exception). However, when applying ESC, the player uses a Course Handicap of 28.

 

 

[SugarPenguin]

Being in the UK there hasnt been much information from my club.

 

Everything I have read has been online and its fairly confusing. There just seems to be no clear definition on what is happening. Long-term I think it will be a huge benefit however.

 

One question I cannot find the answer too is social rounds of golf. You do not have to submit your score for every round - only pre-determined rounds and them comps?

Then it is the average of your 8 best rounds from the last 20 ?

[Newby]

1) If you are playing in the UK, the the authorised recording rounds are individual medal/stableford competitions and pre-registered, attested general play (ie equivalent to supplementary scores).

 

2) Yes

 

In England, presentations are being made to club representatives by the county officials over the next few months. Scotland may be ahead as there are fewer clubs. I don't know what the situation is in Ireland or Wales.

There is no real rush as it doesn't start here for another 12 months (to the day).

[Shilgy]

> @Sawgrass said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > Sawgrass, we had the same issue recently in our weekly MGA game. Because players are playing different tees we adjust the longer than the “base” tee appropriately based on course rating. If a 8 handicap plays tees that make him a 10 FOR THAT COMP can he then take a 7 on a hole for handicap rather than being limited to a double bogey? To let him take a 7 would be similar to letting him take a 7 if he played a +2 or better in match play and getting ten shots.

>

> > @Newby said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> >

> > > I see no justification for why the score I post today/handicap I receive tomorrow should be based on an unrelated-to-course-difficulty committee decision to provide only 90% or 80% of my handicap for a tournament.

> >

> > What has a handicap allowance of 80 or 90% got to do with (CR- Par) ?

>

> Newby, here I am discussing 2019 handicap rules where there is no CR-Par.

>

> Shilgy, here is the segment of the current handicap manual which supports my contention that the 8 cap converted to a 10 in your competition should only take DB for ESC purposes, it's from section 4.3:

>

> Example 3: A player with a Handicap Index of 25.4 and a Course Handicap of 28 might enter a competition in which players are competing from different tees. The difference between the higher-rated set of tees (a USGA Course Rating of 73.0) and the lower-rated set of tees (a USGA Course Rating of 71.2) is 2 strokes (73.0-71.2=1.8 rounded to 2). From the course with the USGA Course Rating of 73.0, the player would receive two additional strokes, which would give the player a Course Handicap of 30 (see Decision 3-5/1 for the only exception). However, when applying ESC, the player uses a Course Handicap of 28.

>

>

 

Thank you for not only explaining but also showing me where to find the explanation. Much appreciated.