WHS - confused by England Golf Course Handicap calculation

[Mr. Bean]

6 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. 

 

As you so kindly took me into your post I would like to pose you a question.

 

What is the reason for UK NOT to follow suit with more or less the entire world? As you pointed out, the calculation is the same, and YET you guys had to decide NOT to follow suit but HAD to stay in your old system.

 

Why?

[DaveLeeNC]

11 minutes ago, Newby said:

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. 

But it IS relevant to the score that you post in some cases. Assume that a UK player has a 10 CH  on a course of Par 72 (rating is 69.0), and his golf score on a par 4 (hole handicap # of 10) is a snowman (8). He gets a stroke on this hole and posts a 7. 

 

EVERYTHING is the same in the US except this player now only gets 7 strokes and he does not get a stroke on the par 4 above, so he posts a 6. This will (potentially) affect this player's index because he is posting a different score vs. the UK example. 

 

dave

[Halebopp]

29 minutes ago, Newby said:

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.

 

Dave beat me to it. If we had the same handicap and we played the same course from the same set of tees and shot exactly the same scores on each hole for a total of 84 strokes but my Course Handicap was 12 and yours is 14 due to the CR-Par difference (when we return the scores to our own handicapping systems).

 

On the par-4 hole with HCP Index of 13, we both make a 9. When I enter the score to my system, my Adjusted Gross Score will be 81. When you return your score to your system, your Adjusted Gross Score will be 82.

 

As for the delay. If you play an evening round and return home at 10 pm, you take a shower, prepare something to eat, it might be closer to 11 before you post the score online and only then will the system be able to send a notification to the marker telling him/her to go online to attest the score. Chances are the marker doesn't even realize it until the next morning. But that's just pure speculation on my part as I can't think of any other reasons as to why they'd do away with requiring attestation.

[nsxguy]

29 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Dave beat me to it. If we had the same handicap and we played the same course from the same set of tees and shot exactly the same scores on each hole for a total of 84 strokes but my Course Handicap was 12 and yours is 14 due to the CR-Par difference (when we return the scores to our own handicapping systems).

 

 

Possibly a clearer(?) example would be a single player; the 15 HI senior who plays from tees rated 5 shots lower than par.

 

His 15 index gives him 15 shots from the senior tees WITHOUT CR-PAR (UK).

 

The same guy gets only 10 shots in the U.S.

 

That leaves 5 holes in the U.S. where he can't take triple bogey for his entered handicap score. He can take triple bogies on those "extra" 5 holes in the U.K. (until ?). So the potential exists for handicap differentials to be,,,,,,,, different.

 

That aside, I expect the WHS guys, including both the U.S. and UK, have taken this into account and came to the same conclusion - "statistically insignificant".

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by nsxguy

[Colin L]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

As you so kindly took me into your post I would like to pose you a question.

 

What is the reason for UK NOT to follow suit with more or less the entire world? As you pointed out, the calculation is the same, and YET you guys had to decide NOT to follow suit but HAD to stay in your old system.

 

Why?

A "thoughtful consideration of the management of change".   Minimising the extent of change by not changing an element that doesn't need to be changed reduces the potential difficulty and stress of adapting to change.  That doesn't necessarily mean the change will never be made..

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Colin L

[Halebopp]

3 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

That aside, I expect the WHS guys, including both the U.S. and UK, have taken this into account and came to the same conclusion - "statistically insignificant".

 

 

I would be inclined to agree with that thought.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Deceptively Short said:

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.

 

The "pre-registered" round would be a non-competition, i.e. casual round, no ? So it's the same as in the U.S. where the only difference is the guy doesn't have to register. He's required to post the round so long as he plays by the Rules.

 

Scrambles never were used and practice rounds, at least to my mind, are those where I'm often playing by myself and hitting multiple drives, irons, or whatever. i.e. Haven't played according to the Rules.

 

But even if, as generally believed outside of the UK, that only "comp" rounds were used, there is still the question of whether or not a competition generates lower than average numbers or higher than average numbers.

 

I mean there are golfers who "concentrate"(?) more when playing a comp and play better and then there are players who can't handles the pressure" and shoot worse rounds in competition. That said, even higher handicappers will use better course management and make better decisions when they know they're in a comp.

 

And "vanity" caps, at least here in the U.S., are a real "thing" - then again, those vanity cappers aren't playing many comps - they know.

 

Now, anecdotally I would say that scores are generally worse in a comp, but even then I can't be entirely sure.

 

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

As you so kindly took me into your post I would like to pose you a question.

 

What is the reason for UK NOT to follow suit with more or less the entire world? As you pointed out, the calculation is the same, and YET you guys had to decide NOT to follow suit but HAD to stay in your old system.

 

Why?

Because it is more straightforward.

How many strokes did I take?

What is the course difficulty?

How well did I do?

You played x shots better (or worse) than expected.

 

But what is the reason for having further piece of arithmetic in the calculation? 

 

Incidentally, does it use the unrounded or rounded course rating?

Edited October 28, 2020 by Newby

[Deceptively Short]

15 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

The "pre-registered" round would be a non-competition, i.e. casual round, no ? So it's the same as in the U.S. where the only difference is the guy doesn't have to register. He's required to post the round so long as he plays by the Rules.

 

Scrambles never were used and practice rounds, at least to my mind, are those where I'm often playing by myself and hitting multiple drives, irons, or whatever. i.e. Haven't played according to the Rules.

 

But even if, as generally believed outside of the UK, that only "comp" rounds were used, there is still the question of whether or not a competition generates lower than average numbers or higher than average numbers.

 

I mean there are golfers who "concentrate"(?) more when playing a comp and play better and then there are players who can't handles the pressure" and shoot worse rounds in competition. That said, even higher handicappers will use better course management and make better decisions when they know they're in a comp.

 

And "vanity" caps, at least here in the U.S., are a real "thing" - then again, those vanity cappers aren't playing many comps - they know.

 

Now, anecdotally I would say that scores are generally worse in a comp, but even then I can't be entirely sure.

 

One of the fundamental differences in format is that this jurisdiction only accepts singles stroke play. This eliminates the support element of having a partner. Certainly for me and fellow players here, strategy is markedly different when playing with a partner or in matchplay, especialy betterball matchplay. I certainly know that our individual scores are significantly different (lower) when playing within a team or in matchplay than in our 'qualifying stroke play rounds. We have many players who are brilliant partners in team competitions to have but 'go to pieces' with their own card in hand.

[nsxguy]

14 minutes ago, Deceptively Short said:

One of the fundamental differences in format is that this jurisdiction only accepts singles stroke play. This eliminates the support element of having a partner. Certainly for me and fellow players here, strategy is markedly different when playing with a partner or in matchplay, especialy betterball matchplay. I certainly know that our individual scores are significantly different (lower) when playing within a team or in matchplay than in our 'qualifying stroke play rounds. We have many players who are brilliant partners in team competitions to have but 'go to pieces' with their own card in hand.

 

Ahhhh, yes, I forgot about excluding those sort of team comps.

 

While your anecdotal observation of "significantly" is true or not, of course I don't know.

 

My club of 25+ years played MANY team games. Personally I don't think the team game aspect makes a material difference but I confess I'd never really "studied" it.

 

But, in our team games we often would see higher scores as when 1 or more players (depending on # per team of course) are in good shape the other(s) would often take chances they otherwise wouldn't, more often resulting in a higher score than not.

 

So I guess YMMV ?

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Halebopp said:

As for the delay. If you play an evening round and return home at 10 pm, you take a shower, prepare something to eat, it might be closer to 11 before you post the score online and only then will the system be able to send a notification to the marker telling him/her to go online to attest the score. Chances are the marker doesn't even realize it until the next morning. But that's just pure speculation on my part as I can't think of any other reasons as to why they'd do away with requiring attestation.

Most clubs here have PSI (Player Score Input) terminals in the club house. Returns are done almost immediately. Attested cards are put in a box and can be checked later if warranted. England Golf is giving grants to clubs that haven't got them. 

Phone apps allowing immediate electronic attestation are widely available and increasingly used.

 

The CONGU ratchet system meant that player's handicap could often change after one round. The WHS averaging system makes this very unlikely.

[Newby]

9 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

YMMV ?

I had to google that. Different world out there.

[rogolf]

17 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Ahhhh, yes, I forgot about excluding those sort of team comps.

 

While your anecdotal observation of "significantly" is true or not, of course I don't know.

 

My club of 25+ years played MANY team games. Personally I don't think the team game aspect makes a material difference but I confess I'd never really "studied" it.

 

But, in our team games we often would see higher scores as when 1 or more players (depending on # per team of course) are in good shape the other(s) would often take chances they otherwise wouldn't, more often resulting in a higher score than not.

 

So I guess YMMV ?

Just an observation - there may be a difference between "team" games and match play with partners. 

When we play "team" games, which is most of the rounds I play, it is individual stroke play where everyone on the team tries their best for their own best hole score.  All rounds are posted.  (I'm in North America)

[rogolf]

19 minutes ago, Newby said:

Most clubs here have PSI (Player Score Input) terminals in the club house. Returns are done almost immediately. Attested cards are put in a box and can be checked later if warranted. England Golf is giving grants to clubs that haven't got them. 

Phone apps allowing immediate electronic attestation are widely available and increasingly used.

 

The CONGU ratchet system meant that player's handicap could often change after one round. The WHS averaging system makes this very unlikely.

I would disagree with that - having been in a jurisdiction that was based on averages (10 out of 20)  and updated handicaps daily, a single score can change the handicap index significantly.  It depends on which score is falling out of the last 20, whether it was a very good score being added and how close the handicap index is to the next upper or lower range.

We had one player who had a very good score two weeks ago and his course handicap went down 3 as a result (exceptional score process kicked in).

Edited October 28, 2020 by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Because it is more straightforward.

How many strokes did I take?

What is the course difficulty?

How well did I do?

You played x shots better (or worse) than expected.

 

But what is the reason for having further piece of arithmetic in the calculation? 

 

Incidentally, does it use the unrounded or rounded course rating?

One more excuse not to do what the others have done, right..?

 

In other words, 'our way is better than the others' way'. Sounds very much like the PM.

 

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. There will always be persons who believe their way is better so they will not yield for the common good.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Mr. Bean

[ParHunter]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

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.

A scratch player plays a course that has a CR of 73 but a par of 72. As the CR-par rating is not applied his playing handicap is 0. He shoots level par except for the hole with SI 1. He blobs that hole and a 6 is being put down. (Par 4)
When the handicap differential is calculated   His 2 over par is turned into a one over par as the CR is applied (is my understanding correct)?

Now let’s say the Course Handicap does use the Car-par adjustment so the player gets a shot on that hole. He still blobs it but this time a 7 is put down. So his round is a 3 over par and for the handicap calculation the CR is taken into account so he ends up with a 2 over par. 
So the player blobs the same hole but in the UK it would be counted as a 1 over while in the as US it would be a 2 over.

 What an I missing?

[nsxguy]

5 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Just an observation - there may be a difference between "team" games and match play with partners. 

When we play "team" games, which is most of the rounds I play, it is individual stroke play where everyone on the team tries their best for their own best hole score.  All rounds are posted.  (I'm in North America)

 

I guess the obvious question is how is your team's score calculated and how is the prize money allocated (assuming there is prize $ of course) ?

 

We played 4 man teams, 2 best balls. NO strokes. Birdies were $ too so if 2 players were in really good spots to virtually guarantee pars the other 2 would be flag hunting no matter where the flag was. That leads to higher scores.

 

A BIG win would be about $140 per man. An average win would be around $80 per.

 

As well we were usually within some form of NET individual stroke play tournament running over 3 or 4 rounds. But I'd be surprised if, on any given Sunday, more than 25% of the players that day even realized they were in said tournament

 

Also, we gave out a few low gross prizes and twice as many low net prizes every round (about $20) but again, those were considered secondary by most players and they'd likely not think about it until near the end of the round, focusing instead on the team game.

[nsxguy]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

One more excuse not to do what the others have done, right..?

 

In other words, 'our way is better than the others' way'. Sounds very much like the PM.

 

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. There will always be persons who believe their way is better so they will not yield for the common good.

 

You might want to chill out a little on this point.

 

It's a long thread and maybe you forgot or just didn't see it but @Colin L and/or @Newby suggested that the CONGU folks MAY have wanted to dip their toes in the water first and that the (CR-PAR) may come in a bit later.

 

I'd suggest it's a bit too early to be in "Youse guys think you're smarter than everybody else" camp.

[nsxguy]

14 minutes ago, ParHunter said:

A scratch player plays a course that has a CR of 73 but a par of 72. As the CR-par rating is not applied his playing handicap is 0. He shoots level par except for the hole with SI 1. He blobs that hole and a 6 is being put down. (Par 4)
When the handicap differential is calculated   His 2 over par is turned into a one over par as the CR is applied (is my understanding correct)?

Now let’s say the Course Handicap does use the Car-par adjustment so the player gets a shot on that hole. He still blobs it but this time a 7 is put down. So his round is a 3 over par and for the handicap calculation the CR is taken into account so he ends up with a 2 over par. 
So the player blobs the same hole but in the UK it would be counted as a 1 over while in the as US it would be a 2 over.

 What an I missing?

 

Not quite.

 

CR-PAR is NOT part of the differential calculation. It is only part of the Course Handicap calculation for that single round. And the CH determines the shots he gets on stroke holes for handicap purposes, i.e. NET double bogey.

 

Since his UK CH is 0, he is "entitled" to have a net double on ANY hole so the full "6" is included in his gross score for handicap purposes. If he made TRIPLE on any hole his score for handicap calc would be reduced to net double.

 

So for this player, ANY DOUBLE would count towards handicapping.

 

In the USA, he'd be a 1 and a TRIPLE bogey on his only stroke hole would be OK. On ANY other hole he would be reduced, for handicap calc, to a net double bogey. 

[rogolf]

15 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I guess the obvious question is how is your team's score calculated and how is the prize money allocated (assuming there is prize $ of course) ?

 

We played 4 man teams, 2 best balls. NO strokes. Birdies were $ too so if 2 players were in really good spots to virtually guarantee pars the other 2 would be flag hunting no matter where the flag was. That leads to higher scores.

 

A BIG win would be about $140 per man. An average win would be around $80 per.

 

As well we were usually within some form of NET individual stroke play tournament running over 3 or 4 rounds. But I'd be surprised if, on any given Sunday, more than 25% of the players that day even realized they were in said tournament

 

Also, we gave out a few low gross prizes and twice as many low net prizes every round (about $20) but again, those were considered secondary by most players and they'd likely not think about it until near the end of the round, focusing instead on the team game.

When we have all foursomes, we play best two NET or '40' (the team needs to accumulate 40 net scores over the 18 holes to achieve the most under par total, decision on how many scores to use on each hole must be decided upon completion of that hole, no changes afterwards).

When we have groups of three and groups of four, we play net Stableford, with the groups of four counting the best three and the groups of three counting the best two and the second best counts twice (to make a total of three).

Each player pays $5 each round, winners might get $15 per player back.

In our team games, everyone is doing their best for their own individual score, whether that's "flag-hunting" or playing conservatively.  I don't see their play leading to any higher scores than they would achieve if they weren't involved in the team game.

And we're digressing from the topic at hand.

The purpose of my post above was only to clarify terminology - "team" games versus "partners".

[Deceptively Short]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Ahhhh, yes, I forgot about excluding those sort of team comps.

 

While your anecdotal observation of "significantly" is true or not, of course I don't know.

 

My club of 25+ years played MANY team games. Personally I don't think the team game aspect makes a material difference but I confess I'd never really "studied" it.

 

But, in our team games we often would see higher scores as when 1 or more players (depending on # per team of course) are in good shape the other(s) would often take chances they otherwise wouldn't, more often resulting in a higher score than not.

 

So I guess YMMV ?

But I guess all other jurisdictions, except the USGA following ones, when looking at the results and implications of moving to include all scores not just those of individual strokeplay decided that it wasn’t a ‘much of a muchness’ (a UK translational of YMMV) and therefore decided not to include them when there was the perfect opportunity i.e. the introduction of the WHS. 
Therfore comparing numbers from two systems who both didn’t wish, for whatever reason, to change the fundamental basis of acceptable formats, despite having been given the opportunity, would not seem to enable ‘fair and equal competition’ between members of the different jurisdictions.

 

 

[Halebopp]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Most clubs here have PSI (Player Score Input) terminals in the club house. Returns are done almost immediately. Attested cards are put in a box and can be checked later if warranted. England Golf is giving grants to clubs that haven't got them. 

Phone apps allowing immediate electronic attestation are widely available and increasingly used.

 

The CONGU ratchet system meant that player's handicap could often change after one round. The WHS averaging system makes this very unlikely.

 

Assuming a players scores completely random scores in a random order within the limits of the best and worst scores in the last 20 rounds, there's a 40% chance your round in WHS will have a direct effect on your handicap, there's also a 40% chance even a bad round will affect your handicap by dropping a top-8 score off the calculations. Therefore we can assume that any given round has a 64% chance of a given round affecting your score. If your handicap is being capped, the very likely change in the Low Handicap Index will also cause a change to the Handicap Index. So there's still a very good chance one's handicap will change after a given round.

 

In fact, I went through my WHS history and my HI had changed after 62% of my returned scores this year.

 

I remember some clubs having computers in the lobby for booking tee times and returning scores but that's not a common practice. Naturally there are also mobile phone applications to keep track of your score while you play and simply send post after the round but not many players are too keen on using them during the round (I'm definitely one of them).

 

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

You might want to chill out a little on this point.

 

It's a long thread and maybe you forgot or just didn't see it but @Colin L and/or @Newby suggested that the CONGU folks MAY have wanted to dip their toes in the water first and that the (CR-PAR) may come in a bit later.

 

I'd suggest it's a bit too early to be in "Youse guys think you're smarter than everybody else" camp.

 

I am rather sure I addressed my question to Newby, and as you seem to be from South Florida I dare question you are in the position to answer on his behalf. But thank you for contributing anyway.

[North Butte]

2 hours ago, Deceptively Short said:

But I guess all other jurisdictions, except the USGA following ones, when looking at the results and implications of moving to include all scores not just those of individual strokeplay decided that it wasn’t a ‘much of a muchness’ (a UK translational of YMMV) and therefore decided not to include them when there was the perfect opportunity i.e. the introduction of the WHS. 
Therfore comparing numbers from two systems who both didn’t wish, for whatever reason, to change the fundamental basis of acceptable formats, despite having been given the opportunity, would not seem to enable ‘fair and equal competition’ between members of the different jurisdictions.

 

 

I don't think you're ever going to get this point acceded to by those who swallowed the WHS marketing completely and uncritically. 

 

USGA is never going to give up its being able to sell handicaps to anyone who pays a subscriptions and wants to type numbers into the GHIN app to keep a "handicap".

 

UK and other areas who have a club-competition culture and have always based their "handicaps" on comp scores can't possibly see any reason to start letting people type in numbers without peer review or oversight.

 

So there will always be "handicaps" and "handicaps" that aren't the same things at all. You can't reconcile that by clever manipulation of formulas or messing about the edges of the system. It's like coming up with a formula that equates a certain amount of Chalk with a certain amount of Cheese and makes them the same thing. 

Edited October 28, 2020 by North Butte

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I am rather sure I addressed my question to Newby, and as you seem to be from South Florida I dare question you are in the position to answer on his behalf. But thank you for contributing anyway.

 

When it please you, you are very good at slapping someone's wrist for their mistakes, forgetfulness or simply not reading pertinent parts of threads.

 

But for YOUR lack of memory, or disinclination to read earlier posts, even though they were directly pertaining to the discussion, when someone brings that to YOUR attention, this is what you give in return.

 

You've recently shown some semblance of a sense of humor but your condescension, superior attitude and general snottiness has apparently returned.

 

Thanks for reminding me. 

[michael59]

It's garbage!

We've just played our first competition and the WHS is unbelievably difficult to comprehend. I play off 10.7. Played with a lad off 10.3 and we both received 10 shots (unfair!) The winner had a 66 playing off 24.8 and he got reduced to 23.9 (-9). 2nd was off 8.1 reduced to 7.6 (-5). 1 new member off 17.3 shot a 77 and received a full shot back and another off 8.7 shot a 71 and also received a full shot back!! Work that one out!

[Halebopp]

5 hours ago, michael59 said:

It's garbage!

We've just played our first competition and the WHS is unbelievably difficult to comprehend. I play off 10.7. Played with a lad off 10.3 and we both received 10 shots (unfair!) The winner had a 66 playing off 24.8 and he got reduced to 23.9 (-9). 2nd was off 8.1 reduced to 7.6 (-5). 1 new member off 17.3 shot a 77 and received a full shot back and another off 8.7 shot a 71 and also received a full shot back!! Work that one out!

 

If I understood you correctly, the winner's differential was 7.2 strokes better than the 8th best differential from the past 20 rounds before the competition round. (0.9 * 8 = 7.2)

 

As for the player finishing second, the differential from the competition score was 4.0 strokes better than the old 8th best differential. (0.5 * 8 = 4.0)

 

I assume a "full shot back" means their handicaps went up by a full stroke. In such a situation they would've had a very good differential as their 20th score and the good differential dropped off the calculations altogether. It would've been 8.0 strokes better than their new 8th best differential. (1.0 * 8 = 8.0)

Edited April 11, 2021 by Halebopp

[DaveLeeNC]

5 hours ago, michael59 said:

We've just played our first competition and the WHS is unbelievably difficult to comprehend. I play off 10.7. Played with a lad off 10.3 and we both received 10 shots (unfair!)

 

I did not understand most of what you stated. But why is playing even against someone whose index is 0.4 strokes different than yours somehow unfair? Were you expecting fractional strokes? 

 

dave

[Halebopp]

40 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I did not understand most of what you stated. But why is playing even against someone whose index is 0.4 strokes different than yours somehow unfair? Were you expecting fractional strokes? 

 

dave

 

It's probably because of their old method of simply rounding 10.3 to 10 and 10.7 to 11 to get their "playing handicaps".

[Newby]

6 hours ago, michael59 said:

It's garbage!

We've just played our first competition and the WHS is unbelievably difficult to comprehend. I play off 10.7. Played with a lad off 10.3 and we both received 10 shots (unfair!) The winner had a 66 playing off 24.8 and he got reduced to 23.9 (-9). 2nd was off 8.1 reduced to 7.6 (-5). 1 new member off 17.3 shot a 77 and received a full shot back and another off 8.7 shot a 71 and also received a full shot back!! Work that one out!

 I'm guessing you haven't yet got to grips with the concept of 'the average of the best 8 from the last 20 scores'. 

Under CONGU, handicaps were adjusted based only on the score in the last competition.

 

In fact it is pretty easy to work out when you look at each player's individual playing record.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Newby