WHS - confused by England Golf Course Handicap calculation

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Deceptively Short said:

Thanks for that link. It makes the calculation easier, however this appears to be another difference between CONGU and the rest of the world. Not only that CONGU has chosen not to have Cr-par as part of the calculation of course handicap but they have also chosen to calculate it differently.

 

I'm sorry but how so ?

 

That link points to the USGA & R&A document. Is there something in there about a different calculation for CONGU ?

[Newby]

3 hours ago, North Butte said:

Yep.

 

I think the whole undertaking should have been called the "World Slope Rating System" instead of "World Handicap System". The handicapping is still totally different, the thing that was standardized is everyone doing Slope Ratings.

Equally significant is half the world moving to a averaging system from a ratchet system.

[nsxguy]

12 minutes ago, Newby said:

Equally significant is half the world moving to a averaging system from a ratchet system.

 

I think one could make the case that the new WHS, with indexes changing DAILY is a form of ratcheting.

 

Prior to WHS handicaps were revised twice a month.

 

A compromise ?

[Deceptively Short]

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'm sorry but how so ?

 

That link points to the USGA & R&A document. Is there something in there about a different calculation for CONGU ?

The link is to a CONGU document which says for multi tee competitions, you calculate the course handicap and then add/subtract the difference between the course ratings. The difference is therefore rounded up or down and does not form part of the overall calculation as it is done in the US. This results in my calculation done the US way that on the par 72 yellow 131/71.3 course I get (off 5.0) 5 shots and my fellow competitor off 19.4 gets 22 - off the whites 132/72.7 I get 7 he gets 23. In CONGU the difference between the Cr is 1.4 rounded to 1 so we would only get 1 shot more than our course handicap.

[nsxguy]

16 minutes ago, Deceptively Short said:

The link is to a CONGU document which says for multi tee competitions, you calculate the course handicap and then add/subtract the difference between the course ratings. The difference is therefore rounded up or down and does not form part of the overall calculation as it is done in the US. This results in my calculation done the US way that on the par 72 yellow 131/71.3 course I get (off 5.0) 5 shots and my fellow competitor off 19.4 gets 22 - off the whites 132/72.7 I get 7 he gets 23. In CONGU the difference between the Cr is 1.4 rounded to 1 so we would only get 1 shot more than our course handicap.

 

The link is to a CONGU site but the document appears to be the (same) USGA/R&A Handicapping Manual. Page 65, which was referred to in the link but the link did NOT go to, is about Playing Handicaps and now you're explaining Course Handicaps.

 

You're referring to the CR-PAR part of the CH calc in the U.S. that's NOT in the CONGU WHS which I thought we'd left behind - and we were now talking Playing Handicaps, i.e. percentages of CH for different games.

 

We know the calc between including CR-PAR and NOT including it will sometimes come in with a different CH but everyone will have the same "error" from time to time. That has always been an "issue" with handicap/CH/PH calculations (USA). Sometimes ya get the "extra" stroke and sometimes ya don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Handicaps are meant to make as fair a game as possible. It's (certainly) not meant to be perfect.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

21 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

We know the calc between including CR-PAR and NOT including it will sometimes come in with a different CH but everyone will have the same "error" from time to time. That has always been an "issue" with handicap/CH/PH calculations (USA). Sometimes ya get the "extra" stroke and sometimes ya don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Not everyone will experience the 'same error' across time. The golfer who mostly plays on a course where CR-Par is 1.4 (rounds to 1) will never see his/her CH end up being 1 stroke lower than the case where CR-Par is included directly in the calculation. The player where CR-Par is 1.6 will never see his/her CH end up being 1 stroke higher than the case where CR-Par is included directly into the calculation.

 

dave

[nsxguy]

11 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Not everyone will experience the 'same error' across time. The golfer who mostly plays on a course where CR-Par is 1.4 (rounds to 1) will never see his/her CH end up being 1 stroke lower than the case where CR-Par is included directly in the calculation. The player where CR-Par is 1.6 will never see his/her CH end up being 1 stroke higher than the case where CR-Par is included directly into the calculation.

 

dave

 

This is correct but every player from the same tee set will get the same adjustment.

 

So everybody from the tee set where the diff is 1.4 will get 1.

 

Everybody from the tee set where the diff is 1.6 will get 2.

 

The "issue", if there is one, is that from say 1 tee set further back where the diff is 3.3 they will "only" add 3. If the diff was 3.8 they would add 4.

 

Then the 1.4 front would be 2.4 diff from further back and yet be giving the further back player 3 (1 vs. 4) when their argument would be "2.4 rounds to 2".

 

That said, it has been offered that they may have left off CR-PAR because of the vast difference in systems and may go to including the CR-PAR next year,,,,,,,,,,,, which would presumably negate the above issue.

 

Sometimes ya get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you. There is NO perfect system.

[Mr. Bean]

WHS has fallen into the same pit as any attempt to make anything working worldwide. That pit is called politics.

 

Every nation, in this case every national golf association, wants to have their own fingerprint it the system just to show their citizens (members) that they did not yield but kept their head. They do that even knowing it is a stupid thing to do and that is really pathetic.

 

I sincerely cannot understand why this WHS could not be exactly the same everywhere. It is not about different climate. It is not about different length of playing season. It is not about number of golf courses. It is only about people's stupid pride not to accept something just because doing that would make them look like losers, only in their own minds.

 

So sad.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[North Butte]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

WHS has fallen into the same pit as any attempt to make anything working worldwide. That pit is called politics.

 

Every nation, in this case every national golf association, wants to have their own fingerprint it the system just to show their citizens (members) that they did not yield but kept their head. They do that even knowing it is a stupid thing to do and that is really pathetic.

 

I sincerely cannot understand why this WHS could not be exactly the same everywhere. It is not about different climate. It is not about different length of playing season. It is not about number of golf courses. It is only about people's stupid pride not to accept something just because doing that would make them look like losers, only in their own minds.

 

So sad.

But the question all along has been, for any given golfer or local golf association, what's in it for them?

 

To myself or any of the couple dozen golfers I most frequently play with, having the same handicap system as is used in UK or Australia or Canada or Finland or Japan has exactly zero benefit. Not that we would mind it being the same everywhere but we also don't care if it's different elsewhere.

 

[Mr. Bean]

49 minutes ago, North Butte said:

But the question all along has been, for any given golfer or local golf association, what's in it for them?

 

To myself or any of the couple dozen golfers I most frequently play with, having the same handicap system as is used in UK or Australia or Canada or Finland or Japan has exactly zero benefit. Not that we would mind it being the same everywhere but we also don't care if it's different elsewhere.

 

 

That, my friend, is a self-centered attitude. Sometimes it pays off to think outside the box.

[ParHunter]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

WHS has fallen into the same pit as any attempt to make anything working worldwide. That pit is called politics.

 

Every nation, in this case every national golf association, wants to have their own fingerprint it the system just to show their citizens (members) that they did not yield but kept their head. They do that even knowing it is a stupid thing to do and that is really pathetic.

 

I sincerely cannot understand why this WHS could not be exactly the same everywhere. It is not about different climate. It is not about different length of playing season. It is not about number of golf courses. It is only about people's stupid pride not to accept something just because doing that would make them look like losers, only in their own minds.

 

So sad.

I used to work in standardisation and while you do start with good intentions every party involved has their own goals and in the end you end up with a one-legged Frankenstein when the brief was to design the perfect specimen 😀

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

That, my friend, is a self-centered attitude. Sometimes it pays off to think outside the box.

Pays for whom? 

 

This whole thing has been based on the assertion that "The world needs a unified handicap system" which I've never heard any golfer say, ever. 

[rogolf]

8 minutes ago, ParHunter said:

I used to work in standardisation and while you do start with good intentions every party involved has their own goals and in the end you end up with a one-legged Frankenstein when the brief was to design the perfect specimen

Or, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee."😀

[Mr. Bean]

12 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Pays for whom? 

 

This whole thing has been based on the assertion that "The world needs a unified handicap system" which I've never heard any golfer say, ever. 

 

So... if you have not heard of something it proves that it does not exist..?

 

I have nothing further to add on this subject.

[Mr. Bean]

18 minutes ago, ParHunter said:

I used to work in standardisation and while you do start with good intentions every party involved has their own goals and in the end you end up with a one-legged Frankenstein when the brief was to design the perfect specimen 😀

I believe you have said the same thing as myself, just with different words.

[North Butte]

11 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So... if you have not heard of something it proves that it does not exist..?

 

I have nothing further to add on this subject.

Well if the world does desperately need a unified handicap system, then the world is out of luck. Because it did not happen and I can't see how it ever will. 

[Newby]

Of course the WHS organisation never claimed that it would be exactly the same everywhere in the world.

In fact they made it clear that it wouldn't.

[ParHunter]

9 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

I believe you have said the same thing as myself, just with different words.

Yes I was just affirming your point

[ParHunter]

8 hours ago, Newby said:

Of course the WHS organisation never claimed that it would be exactly the same everywhere in the world.

In fact they made it clear that it wouldn't.

I don’t think that was made clear to the normal golfer. No one in my club knew about any differences in the system. 

[Colin L]

There does seem to be a lot of heat being generated about "differences" in the system, but all the talk about course handicaps, CR-Par and playing handicaps are about matters that apply only to a particular  round being played on a particular course.  They are about the strokes you receive on the day wherever it is you are playing but do not impact on the calculation of your handicap index.  And it is that calculation that is universal, that calculation that makes it a worldwide handicap.  Your handicap index is a function of the course rating (based on the same criteria worldwide);  your gross score is whatever number of blows it took you to get round adjusted by the same worldwide rule to a maximum net double bogey;  your score differential is the calculated equivalent number of strokes that you would have take on a course with a slope rating of 113; every other score in the world is related to that same standard.  Outcome?  Handicap indexes are not subject to variations around the world.  They are comparable.

 

As to differences in the approach to making what for CONGU are huge changes, not only do they not affect the calculation of handicap indexes but they show a thoughtful consideration of the management of change.  Mr Bean in his characteristically and overly blunt way decries this as being stupid etc.  which is just pointlessly  insulting.  More generally, I just can't see  the differences being discussed as in any way undermining the concept of a worldwide system when your handicap index and mine are calculated in the same way and would allow us to play against each other on a fair and equal basis,  If I was playing in a stroke play tournament in the USA I would receive strokes based on CR-Par  but it would be my gross score that travelled home to Scottish Golf.  And if any of our American friends were playing here their CH would not include CR-Par, but neither would anyone else's in the competition.  And it would be their gross score that headed back to the USA to be added to their HI calculations. 

 

[ParHunter]

2 minutes ago, Colin L said:

There does seem to be a lot of heat being generated about "differences" in the system, but all the talk about course handicaps, CR-Par and playing handicaps are about matters that apply only to a particular  round being played on a particular course.  They are about the strokes you receive on the day wherever it is you are playing but do not impact on the calculation of your handicap index.  And it is that calculation that is universal, that calculation that makes it a worldwide handicap.  Your handicap index is a function of the course rating (based on the same criteria worldwide);  your gross score is whatever number of blows it took you to get round adjusted by the same worldwide rule to a maximum net double bogey;  your score differential is the calculated equivalent number of strokes that you would have take on a course with a slope rating of 113; every other score in the world is related to that same standard.  Outcome?  Handicap indexes are not subject to variations around the world.  They are comparable.

 

As to differences in the approach to making what for CONGU are huge changes, not only do they not affect the calculation of handicap indexes but they show a thoughtful consideration of the management of change.  Mr Bean in his characteristically and overly blunt way decries this as being stupid etc.  which is just pointlessly  insulting.  More generally, I just can't see  the differences being discussed as in any way undermining the concept of a worldwide system when your handicap index and mine are calculated in the same way and would allow us to play against each other on a fair and equal basis,  If I was playing in a stroke play tournament in the USA I would receive strokes based on CR-Par  but it would be my gross score that travelled home to Scottish Golf.  And if any of our American friends were playing here their CH would not include CR-Par, but neither would anyone else's in the competition.  And it would be their gross score that headed back to the USA to be added to their HI calculations. 

 

I am just wondering, did the CONGU team talk to their European (which already had the CR-par adjustment) and US colleagues (who didn't have it) before deciding on leaving the adjustment out? They must have heard from the US side what problems this caused. 

 

I think golfers will accept one big breaking change better than lots of of changes over the years if there is ever going to be a phase 2. I just don't see the benefit of leaving it out. Saying they didn't want to change too much does not make sense to me as we already have a completely different system now. That extra little change wouldn't have bothered anyone.

[Halebopp]

33 minutes ago, Colin L said:

They are about the strokes you receive on the day wherever it is you are playing but do not impact on the calculation of your handicap index.  

 

Course Handicaps do affect the Adjusted Gross Scores so the difference is not completely free of further implications.

[North Butte]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

There does seem to be a lot of heat being generated about "differences" in the system, but all the talk about course handicaps, CR-Par and playing handicaps are about matters that apply only to a particular  round being played on a particular course.  They are about the strokes you receive on the day wherever it is you are playing but do not impact on the calculation of your handicap index.  And it is that calculation that is universal, that calculation that makes it a worldwide handicap.  Your handicap index is a function of the course rating (based on the same criteria worldwide);  your gross score is whatever number of blows it took you to get round adjusted by the same worldwide rule to a maximum net double bogey;  your score differential is the calculated equivalent number of strokes that you would have take on a course with a slope rating of 113; every other score in the world is related to that same standard.  Outcome?  Handicap indexes are not subject to variations around the world.  They are comparable.

 

As to differences in the approach to making what for CONGU are huge changes, not only do they not affect the calculation of handicap indexes but they show a thoughtful consideration of the management of change.  Mr Bean in his characteristically and overly blunt way decries this as being stupid etc.  which is just pointlessly  insulting.  More generally, I just can't see  the differences being discussed as in any way undermining the concept of a worldwide system when your handicap index and mine are calculated in the same way and would allow us to play against each other on a fair and equal basis,  If I was playing in a stroke play tournament in the USA I would receive strokes based on CR-Par  but it would be my gross score that travelled home to Scottish Golf.  And if any of our American friends were playing here their CH would not include CR-Par, but neither would anyone else's in the competition.  And it would be their gross score that headed back to the USA to be added to their HI calculations. 

 

The elephant in the room is posting only attested, competition scores versus golfers typing any number they like into the GHIN app with no peer review, attestation or oversight of any kind. Heck, I'd say 90% of golfers I play with in USA are still posting their solo rounds and scores from games played in alternate shot or other formats where they don't score on their own ball.

 

That's the reason the systems will never yield remotely comparable handicaps. The other details like CR-Par are just silly, but they are still real differences.

 

As for friend Newby's line about WHS never being claimed to make handicapping the same world-wide, surely he's joking. 

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

FWIW, the same round of golf (identical hole by hole scores) on the same course (identical CR/Slope/Hole Pars/Hole Handicaps) do not generate the same posted score or resulting differential. NDB ESC limits are different due to the way CH is calculated between jurisdictions across the world. This is not huge, but in my experience high handicappers hit their ESC a couple times pretty much every round (best 8 or 20 or not). 

 

dave

[Newby]

6 hours ago, North Butte said:

As for friend Newby's line about WHS never being claimed to make handicapping the same world-wide, surely he's joking. 

 

 

The administration and oversight of handicapping will continue to be the responsibility of each handicapping authority and National Association, thus helping to ensure the credibility of the system at the local level. These organisations  have the discretion to tailor the system to fit their own golfing culture.

 

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 any 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.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Newby

[Deceptively Short]

The cultural difference between including only pre-registered, attested, singles strokeplay rounds and almost all rounds except practice rounds and scrambles means that the resultant core number, your handicap index, is vastly different between jusrisdictions. 
This is the the main reason that it does not allow competition ‘on a fair and equal basis’, which is still being claimed as one of the main benefits.

To my mind, we are now getting an improved handicapping system which will be more responsive and more relevant to the tees being played. This is a good thing.

[Newby]

4 hours ago, Halebopp said:

 

Course Handicaps do affect the Adjusted Gross Scores so the difference is not completely free of further implications.

How? Neither the Definition nor Rule 3 (except in one irrelevant situation)t mention Course Handicap. What have I missed?

[DaveLeeNC]

8 minutes ago, Newby said:

How? Neither the Definition nor Rule 3 (except in one irrelevant situation)t mention Course Handicap. What have I missed?

Your maximum POSTED score on a hole is Net Double Bogey. Course Handicap is a primary factor in what that number is on a given hole.

 

dave

[Halebopp]

37 minutes ago, Newby said:

How? Neither the Definition nor Rule 3 (except in one irrelevant situation)t mention Course Handicap. What have I missed?

 

If a player has a Course Handicap of 13 with the CR-Par -adjustment and a Course Handicap of 15 without it (or vice versa), the Net Double Bogey will be different on holes with Hole HCP Indices of 14 and 15.

 

BTW. Will Golf England require score attestation for General Play scores? We did away with it,  most probably due to the PCC and the need to get scores in the same day.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Halebopp

[Newby]

28 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

If a player has a Course Handicap of 13 with the CR-Par -adjustment and a Course Handicap of 15 without it (or vice versa), the Net Double Bogey will be different on holes with Hole HCP Indices of 14 and 15.

 

BTW. Will Golf England require score attestation for General Play scores? We did away with it,  most probably due to the PCC and the need to get scores in the same day.

The CR-Par adjustment is irrelevant for Handicap Index calculations. Players will simply refer to their CH to know where they get strokes if playing stableford. 

 

Yes. General Play attestation is exactly the same as competition play, whether electronic or with cards. Your marker attests. I'm not sure why you suggest there should be any delay in getting a score in immediately after play.