WHS Rule Changes for 2024

[klebs01]

1 hour ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Match play scores is just weird to me for posting for handicap. Core principle of the handicap system is to make the best score possible on each hole. That goes out the window in match play. You're playing to beat your opponent which isnt always mean trying to make the best score possible.

how much match play do you play? I hear comments like this but only from people who don’t play match play often. Making the best possible score on each hole is how you win matches. The hero shot blow up or lag three putt for bogey doesn’t really happen often. I can’t see how it would have much if any impact on handicap. 

[DaveLeeNC]

6 minutes ago, GaHack1 said:

The 9-hole score you post will be scaled up to an 18-hole score using the same formula to arrive at probable scores.

 

@GaHack1 - thanks for the info. I assume that (in some manner) this came from the USGA and/or R&A. That right? 

 

The quoted sentence is most interesting. For golfers who only play 9 hole rounds it is really going to cause a 'regression to the mean' (or maybe better stated a 'regression to your current handicap) as (I assume) it will have you always 'playing to your handicap' on half of the holes that you post. Hmmm. 

 

dave

[SNIPERBBB]

3 hours ago, klebs01 said:

how much match play do you play? I hear comments like this but only from people who don’t play match play often. Making the best possible score on each hole is how you win matches. The hero shot blow up or lag three putt for bogey doesn’t really happen often. I can’t see how it would have much if any impact on handicap. 

Just came out of 72 holes of matchplay tournament this weekend and our mens league is match play. When you only have to beat your opponent by 1 stroke each hole, you do if you're trying to sandbag. Or when your so far ahead in a match, you can hack it around.

Edited October 25, 2023 by SNIPERBBB

[Augster]

6 hours ago, GaHack1 said:

Holes not played will now be automatically calculated to the probable score based on handicap, course rating, playing conditions etc.  They must enter scores hole by hole and leave holes not played as blank. The next revision of the GHIN app is going to facilitate this.

 

The other changes are posting 9-hole scores. They will no longer be combined with another 9-hole score. The 9-hole score you post will be scaled up to an 18-hole score using the same formula to arrive at probable scores. Starting in January you must play 9 holes to post a 9-hole score but only 10 to post an 18-hole score. 

 

Holes started but not completed will still use the most likely score.

Really? That’s a sea change if so. Wow. 
 

So when I play 9, and turn to the 10th tee, I only have to tee off on 10, then I get MLS for 10, and par+ for 11-18? Wow. My cap is going to go down significantly if that is the case. In the fall we are always up against the darkness, and nobody only wants to post 9, so we force our way through the dark to 14 so we can post the round. 
 

Taking par+ for holes 11-18, I’ll shoot a 39 (8-cap). In the dark I rarely shoot better than 43 or 44. Rushing and low visibility, and leaves, aren’t a recipe  for very good scoring. 

[Newby]

6 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

@GaHack1 - thanks for the info. I assume that (in some manner) this came from the USGA and/or R&A. That right? 

 

The quoted sentence is most interesting. For golfers who only play 9 hole rounds it is really going to cause a 'regression to the mean' (or maybe better stated a 'regression to your current handicap) as (I assume) it will have you always 'playing to your handicap' on half of the holes that you post. Hmmm. 

 

dave

This is how CONGU do it currently.

 

5.1b For a 9-hole Score
A 9-hole score is scaled up to an equivalent 18-hole Score Differential for
immediate use in the scoring record.

 

* A 9-hole score is scaled up to an equivalent 18-hole Score Differential by
adding net pars for the remaining holes plus one additional stroke (which is
applied to the first hole not played), or 17 points in Stableford format (see Diagram 5.1b/1).
* The second 9 holes used for scaling up is always the same 9 holes that have
been played.

 

A 9-hole score is scaled up to an equivalent 18-hole Score Differential as follows
and rounded to the nearest tenth, with .5 rounded upwards:
Score Differential = (113 ÷ Slope Rating) x (adjusted gross score – Course Rating – (0.5 x PCC adjustment))
Where:
* Slope Rating equals the 9-hole Slope Rating of the 9 holes played.
* Adjusted gross score equals the adjusted gross score for the 9 holes played,
plus net pars for the second nine holes plus one additional stroke. It is
calculated using the 18-hole Course Handicap, based on the 9 holes played.
* Course Rating equals the Course Rating of the 9 holes played, doubled.
* 50% of the playing conditions calculation (PCC) for the day is applied.

 

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

4 hours ago, Newby said:

This is how CONGU do it currently.

 

5.1b For a 9-hole Score
A 9-hole score is scaled up to an equivalent 18-hole Score Differential for
immediate use in the scoring record.

 

SNIP

 

 

 

 

@Newby Thanks - I did not realize that. Adding an extra stroke and a PCC adjustment makes this sound like somebody really did kind of think this through, where 9 holes of Par+Strokes strikes me a bit differently. 

 

I still wonder "what problem this has solved" WRT combining 9 hole scores. 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

FWIW, I just yesterday posted my first composite (two 9 hole scores) round in a LONG time. It was a weather shortened 9 holes last Friday and a intentional 9 holes (playing with a friend who is no longer to play 18) yesterday. The first 9 hole differential was 0.3 and the second one was 9.2 (over half of the difference was red hot vs ice cold putting). Generating two 18 holes scores rather than one composite would have directly changed my index by over half stroke.

 

dave

[Halebopp]

32 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

@Newby Thanks - I did not realize that. Adding an extra stroke and a PCC adjustment makes this sound like somebody really did kind of think this through, where 9 holes of Par+Strokes strikes me a bit differently. 

 

I still wonder "what problem this has solved" WRT combining 9 hole scores. 

 

dave

 

If I remember correctly, there are four ways in which nine-hole scores are treated in the WHS currently

 

- Combining nine-hole scores

- Doubling the nine-hole score

- Scaling to an 18-hole score by using the played holes

- Scaling to an 18-hole score by using the unplayed holes.

[Augster]

Ah. So the WHS will come more in line with the ROTW for 9-hole scores. It makes sense to me to base your “combined” 9-hole score being the 9 holes you just played. 
 

In Dave’s example, the first 9 holes that were weather shortened, it’d be a keeper score for sure. The scheduled 9-hole “18” wouldn’t be a keeper. But if you combine the two nines played, it also wasn’t a keeper. 
 

This will cut down on a minor amount of sandbagging. I have a friend that shot -4 when he could only play 9. And because he didn’t want to combine it and drop his cap, never played “only 9” the rest of the season. 
 

Someday the WHS may truly be a WHS. 

[Shilgy]

13 hours ago, GaHack1 said:

Holes not played will now be automatically calculated to the probable score based on handicap, course rating, playing conditions etc.  They must enter scores hole by hole and leave holes not played as blank. The next revision of the GHIN app is going to facilitate this.

 

The other changes are posting 9-hole scores. They will no longer be combined with another 9-hole score. The 9-hole score you post will be scaled up to an 18-hole score using the same formula to arrive at probable scores. Starting in January you must play 9 holes to post a 9-hole score but only 10 to post an 18-hole score. 

 

Holes started but not completed will still use the most likely score.

They don’t really calculate on your most likely score on a hole using playing conditions.  It’s just a 9 hole score will get 50% of any PCC change for the day.  It’s not like it calculates what you most likely would have made on the long par 3 over water with a gale force wind in your face.

 

14 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

@NewbyI am a strong believer in the value of the CR-Par adjustment (just to explain my personal bias). But what does the sentence above mean? Thanks. 

 

dave

I believe he was just referring to whether or not he “played to his handicap”.  Here in the states is you’re a 5 CH and shoot 5 over par you played to your handicap.  Without the CR-Par calculation that’s not necessarily correct.  Then it’s your daily CH vs course rating(roughly).

[davep043]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

@Newby Thanks - I did not realize that. Adding an extra stroke and a PCC adjustment makes this sound like somebody really did kind of think this through, where 9 holes of Par+Strokes strikes me a bit differently. 

 

I still wonder "what problem this has solved" WRT combining 9 hole scores. 

 

dave

I agree that this makes sense, the "imaginary 9" score would be pretty close to a player's "average" score, something like 2 over par net for 18 holes.

As for solving a problem, this will (if the report is accurate) unify one more aspect of the handicap system worldwide.  I'm hoping for more movement towards true unification in future revisions.  

[klebs01]

10 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Just came out of 72 holes of matchplay tournament this weekend and our mens league is match play. When you only have to beat your opponent by 1 stroke each hole, you do if you're trying to sandbag. Or when your so far ahead in a match, you can hack it around.

seems like much more of an issue in a stroke play game. Opponent makes a 13 on the second hole and you coast in. Have to keep fighting in match play. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a match play match where a player was making bogies or doubles coasting in.  

[SNIPERBBB]

1 hour ago, klebs01 said:

seems like much more of an issue in a stroke play game. Opponent makes a 13 on the second hole and you coast in. Have to keep fighting in match play. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a match play match where a player was making bogies or doubles coasting in.  

ts an issue in both, especially when skill level gap is bigger or someone has an off day

[betarhoalphadelta]

This discussion is making me glad I don't play match play or 9 hole rounds. 

[Nels55]

I play matches with friends a couple of times a week usually teams.  I also play stroke play just a bit less often.  My scores are the same either way.

[GaHack1]

https://www.foremagazine.com/featured/ch-ch-ch-changes-2024-updates-to-the-world-handicap-system/

 

More detailed explanation of the changes.

 

[2bGood]

On 10/24/2023 at 6:35 PM, klebs01 said:

how much match play do you play? I hear comments like this but only from people who don’t play match play often. Making the best possible score on each hole is how you win matches. The hero shot blow up or lag three putt for bogey doesn’t really happen often. I can’t see how it would have much if any impact on handicap. 

 

3 hours ago, Nels55 said:

I play matches with friends a couple of times a week usually teams.  I also play stroke play just a bit less often.  My scores are the same either way.

I play about 100 match play rounds per year and about 30 competitive stroke play rounds per year. Over three years I have looked at the numbers to see if conceded putts in match play might be sending me into stroke play events with too low of a cap.

 

When I compared  averages of my Match V Stroke scores the average round was .4 lower for stroke. I also set up a spread sheet to figure out my rotating handicaps for each format during the time period and found my handicap was .2 lower for match play on average over the three years. What it basically told me is I do have more blow up high score rounds in match, but I shot enough low rounds in match play that those blow up rounds never counted in my calculations and actually have a lower handicap in that format. 

 

The idea that in match play you may shoot high scores after the match is over, was true for me. I am not a sandbagger, but the difference was more about casual golf vs competitive golf. In stroke play if I don't have my swing, I will grind out a decent score for 18 holes. In match play if I don't have my best stuff, I will grind until the match is over, but then relax after as nothing is on the line if I have a bad score going (sometime that helps though 😄 and I finish strong). If I have a good score going, I continue to grind as I like to still have a low number. 

 

Every player is different, but with only 8 out 20 counting for your handicap, you would need allot of lopsided matches for that to effect your handicap.

[rogolf]

11 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

 

I play about 100 match play rounds per year and about 30 competitive stroke play rounds per year. Over three years I have looked at the numbers to see if conceded putts in match play might be sending me into stroke play events with too low of a cap.

 

When I compared  averages of my Match V Stroke scores the average round was .4 lower for stroke. I also set up a spread sheet to figure out my rotating handicaps for each format during the time period and found my handicap was .2 lower for match play on average over the three years. What it basically told me is I do have more blow up high score rounds in match, but I shot enough low rounds in match play that those blow up rounds never counted in my calculations and actually have a lower handicap in that format. 

 

The idea that in match play you may shoot high scores after the match is over, was true for me. I am not a sandbagger, but the difference was more about casual golf vs competitive golf. In stroke play if I don't have my swing, I will grind out a decent score for 18 holes. In match play if I don't have my best stuff, I will grind until the match is over, but then relax after as nothing is on the line if I have a bad score going (sometime that helps though 😄 and I finish strong). If I have a good score going, I continue to grind as I like to still have a low number. 

 

Every player is different, but with only 8 out 20 counting for your handicap, you would need allot of lopsided matches for that to effect your handicap.

Good job on bring facts and data to the table.  At work, we say that facts and data kill arguments.

[Shilgy]

11 hours ago, klebs01 said:

seems like much more of an issue in a stroke play game. Opponent makes a 13 on the second hole and you coast in. Have to keep fighting in match play. Can’t say I’ve ever seen a match play match where a player was making bogies or doubles coasting in.  

Unless he already won the match and they play out the round.  Then the 12 that’s +1 through 13 holes finishes with 3 doubles and a couple bogeys.

[2bGood]

31 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Good job on bring facts and data to the table.  At work, we say that facts and data kill arguments.

 

It is just one players' data. I would suspect that the ruling bodies have statisticians running this kind of data all the time to guide their decision making. 

 

Most people padding their cap, are not doing it on the course, they are doing by not posting scores or posting false scores. At the end of the day there are blatantly dishonest people, that helpfully you discover through peer review and handicap committees. 

 

 

[2bGood]

44 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Unless he already won the match and they play out the round.  Then the 12 that’s +1 through 13 holes finishes with 3 doubles and a couple bogeys.

If they were 1 over through 13 and shot 8 over on the last 5 holes, they shoot 9 over and their handicap goes down. Not really the best example.

 

So let's look at better example. Assume they played well those 13 holes (they must have played well to smoke their competitor 6 and 5). So they are 5 over, then the go 8 over on the last five as you say. They shot 13 over. If the scores counts in their top 8, that increases their cap by .125. Hardy worth the effort. Now mix in how rare it is to win a match this lopsided, and the fact 12 out of 20 scores don't even count and you likely aren't go to have a big issue. 

 

In my experience allot of the match play occurring is a Nassau. With this format the back nine is a new match. It is extremely rare that one player wins the first five hole of the back, so typically at best 1 or 2 holes no longer matter in this format. 

 

 

[Shilgy]

35 minutes ago, 2bGood said:

If they were 1 over through 13 and shot 8 over on the last 5 holes, they shoot 9 over and their handicap goes down. Not really the best example.

 

So let's look at better example. Assume they played well those 13 holes (they must have played well to smoke their competitor 6 and 5). So they are 5 over, then the go 8 over on the last five as you say. They shot 13 over. If the scores counts in their top 8, that increases their cap by .125. Hardy worth the effort. Now mix in how rare it is to win a match this lopsided, and the fact 12 out of 20 scores don't even count and you likely aren't go to have a big issue. 

 

In my experience allot of the match play occurring is a Nassau. With this format the back nine is a new match. It is extremely rare that one player wins the first five hole of the back, so typically at best 1 or 2 holes no longer matter in this format. 

 

 

Even if it’s a counting round they still sandbagged.  Both are possible at once. He avoided an exceptional penalty to his handicap by bagging once the match is done.

[Augster]

5 hours ago, GaHack1 said:

https://www.foremagazine.com/featured/ch-ch-ch-changes-2024-updates-to-the-world-handicap-system/

 

More detailed explanation of the changes.

 

Well these are awesome changes. 
 

It’s about time they are going to address “handicap review”. It’s supposed to happen at least yearly for each member of a club. Unfortunately, I still haven’t found anything from the USGA of how to do that. Nobody knows. 
 

Hopefully they will put together an algorithm that looks at everyone’s scores in the club, looks at their C score differentials and flags anyone that is shooting “significantly” lower C-score differentials than casual differentials. The Ruling bodies should know, by now, what an expected range of C-score differentials should be for any given index and which differentials are outside that range and how often. 
 

I’d also like to see the flip of that, the vanities. Guys that don’t shoot anywhere near their caps in C-scores compared to casual. Those guys will need a talking to also. To take their casual rounds more seriously (read that stop picking up 3,4 and 5 footers), so they at least have a chance in events. 
 

It’d be nice to have the reviews done statistically and across the board. 

[Newby]

8 hours ago, GaHack1 said:

https://www.foremagazine.com/featured/ch-ch-ch-changes-2024-updates-to-the-world-handicap-system/

 

More detailed explanation of the changes.

 

Looks like the 9 hole score will now be the same as CONGU.

The Handicap Review sounds similar also.

 

England Golf are running a webinar this evening to give details of the changes that will affect the UK like (CR-Par) in the CH calculation.

Edited October 26, 2023 by Newby

[bluedot]

3 hours ago, Augster said:

Well these are awesome changes. 
 

It’s about time they are going to address “handicap review”. It’s supposed to happen at least yearly for each member of a club. Unfortunately, I still haven’t found anything from the USGA of how to do that. Nobody knows. 
 

Hopefully they will put together an algorithm that looks at everyone’s scores in the club, looks at their C score differentials and flags anyone that is shooting “significantly” lower C-score differentials than casual differentials. The Ruling bodies should know, by now, what an expected range of C-score differentials should be for any given index and which differentials are outside that range and how often. 
 

I’d also like to see the flip of that, the vanities. Guys that don’t shoot anywhere near their caps in C-scores compared to casual. Those guys will need a talking to also. To take their casual rounds more seriously (read that stop picking up 3,4 and 5 footers), so they at least have a chance in events. 
 

It’d be nice to have the reviews done statistically and across the board. 

There is now software that integrates with the tee sheet and GHIN to do exactly what you are talking about.  I wish I could remember the name (and there may be more than one?) but my club will be implementing it next year as we change out the software that we use for the club’s website and tee sheet.  The software flags people that are playing but not posting, along with competitive results that are clearly not in line with a player’s index,  whether too high or too low.

 

Fwiw, we have a very active and effective handicap committee, and we find that BY FAR the biggest issue is simply not posting scores.  Those players get a letter from the committee, and we’ve even had one guy who was suspended from playing club tournaments for a full year because of both not posting and very low competitive differentials.  The net result of all of this is very minimal problems with sandbagging; I think that, in general, vanity indexes are far more prevalent, at my club and pretty much everywhere.

 

And btw, vanity indexes are NOT a “victimless crime”.  They screw up flights in tournaments; some guys are playing in too high a flight, which pushes others down, and skews the results.  It also becomes an issue in any sort of league play, etc.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

46 minutes ago, bluedot said:

There is now software that integrates with the tee sheet and GHIN to do exactly what you are talking about.

 

I am curious as to how this works. I am thinking of it in terms of how it might work at our club. 

 

Maybe our club has some unique requirements here, but we have literally multi-thousands of playing members (we have 9-soon to be 10-courses). It is a semi-private club with a huge resort operation in parallel to the member operation. While we have a 'call it in' starting tower, most of our tee times are made online. 

 

The tee sheet closes out sometime the day before play and that generates a paper tee sheet for the starters at each course. Who actually gets onto the course is recorded manually on this paper tee sheet (as changes, if any, to what was generated the previous day). And there-in lies the problem. 

 

On days of iffy weather (this would be a typical day in the winter for our weather-wimp members) most members are waiting until day of play for their final play or not decision, and the tee sheet is already generated. So on those days (LOTS of them in the winter) there will be hundreds and hundreds of discrepancies. 

 

When I was on the handicap committee a decade back this was looked at and rejected (most of the work was done by the club IT team). I would think this would be an issue (on a smaller scale) anywhere such a system is implemented. How is this handled? Just curious. 

 

dave

[Augster]

36 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I am curious as to how this works. I am thinking of it in terms of how it might work at our club. 

 

Maybe our club has some unique requirements here, but we have literally multi-thousands of playing members (we have 9-soon to be 10-courses). It is a semi-private club with a huge resort operation in parallel to the member operation. While we have a 'call it in' starting tower, most of our tee times are made online. 

 

The tee sheet closes out sometime the day before play and that generates a paper tee sheet for the starters at each course. Who actually gets onto the course is recorded manually on this paper tee sheet (as changes, if any, to what was generated the previous day). And there-in lies the problem. 

 

On days of iffy weather (this would be a typical day in the winter for our weather-wimp members) most members are waiting until day of play for their final play or not decision, and the tee sheet is already generated. So on those days (LOTS of them in the winter) there will be hundreds and hundreds of discrepancies. 

 

When I was on the handicap committee a decade back this was looked at and rejected (most of the work was done by the club IT team). I would think this would be an issue (on a smaller scale) anywhere such a system is implemented. How is this handled? Just curious. 

 

dave

At our club, a public club, anyone that checks in at the front desk is put into the computer and gets a “thanks for playing” email. I don’t think it’d be that hard to integrate that check-in database with a GHIN daily posting database. 
 

At least at our course or any Minneapolis public course where you have to check in. 
 

Players that play other courses would still be on their honor to post, but that’s the way it is right now. 
 

Bluedot is correct, MANY of our club players, playing our course, simply don’t post. If I’m at the course that day and see them playing and also check later and see they didn’t post, I email them and tell them to post. It’s a PITA to do it all manually and totally relies on me being there to play every day. 
 

Something more automated would be great. 

[DaveLeeNC]

@Augster At our club I think the issue is integration with the billing system. Elements of ours have not changed since I joined in late 2000 and online/interactive bill-pay has been coming since forever. 

 

And good for you for following up with the non-posters. 

 

dave

[bluedot]

4 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I am curious as to how this works. I am thinking of it in terms of how it might work at our club. 

 

Maybe our club has some unique requirements here, but we have literally multi-thousands of playing members (we have 9-soon to be 10-courses). It is a semi-private club with a huge resort operation in parallel to the member operation. While we have a 'call it in' starting tower, most of our tee times are made online. 

 

The tee sheet closes out sometime the day before play and that generates a paper tee sheet for the starters at each course. Who actually gets onto the course is recorded manually on this paper tee sheet (as changes, if any, to what was generated the previous day). And there-in lies the problem. 

 

On days of iffy weather (this would be a typical day in the winter for our weather-wimp members) most members are waiting until day of play for their final play or not decision, and the tee sheet is already generated. So on those days (LOTS of them in the winter) there will be hundreds and hundreds of discrepancies. 

 

When I was on the handicap committee a decade back this was looked at and rejected (most of the work was done by the club IT team). I would think this would be an issue (on a smaller scale) anywhere such a system is implemented. How is this handled? Just curious. 

 

dave

Wow!  I have NO idea what the possibilities or work arounds are for an operation that size.  I’ll find out the name of the software package we’re getting; maybe the company has ideas for you?
 

The only good news I can think of is that on the bad weather days, the total number of rounds is far less than what was on the tee sheets, so cross checking should be at least marginally easier.  

[jvincent]

4 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I am curious as to how this works. I am thinking of it in terms of how it might work at our club. 

 

 

 

At out club when we log in to the member website which manages tee time bookings, etc. we can see all of our tee times on our personal calendar view. After the round is played the actual score shows up if you post it to Golf Canada. I assume the management software we use has a backend to query Golf Canada.

 

If you don't post a score you get an email, about a week later, that asks you to register the reason for not posting a score. There's a selection of reasons (game format not valid, rules of golf not followed, etc) that you can use.