WHS Rule Changes for 2024

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

Ir seems to me that a major deficiency in the USGA's implementation is the apparent non requirement to attest and verify scores. I am not aware that any other ruling authority has this situation.

 

Certainly here in the UK we generally do not trust American's handicaps.

Correct.

 

With absolutely zero attestation, they can make all the silly posting rules and procedures they like and it has no effect at all on sandbagging.

[Newby]

52 minutes ago, mark m said:

 

How are things going in the former CONGU areas since the implementation of the WHS?

 

I will be specific: my question is in regards to the perception by the majority of club players in regards to open net scoring competitions? I am speaking of comps that are open to participation from more than one club. 

 

Has the implementation of the WHS been received as positive, basically neutral, or negative? Have the number of these events stayed roughly the same, grown, or shrunk? And the same for participation level per event?

 

I ask because I believe you had a better competitive system and culture than we had prior to the WHS, and I am curious as to what has occurred since.

 

I hope you can respond.

 Thanks 

 

I'm not sure what you are looking for but Individual Open competitions are virtually all scratch strokeplay and I have not noticed any change in numbers of comps or entrants.

The others are virtually all 4BBB and therefore don't qualify for handicap updates. However, there is some evidence that since the significantly increased encouragement of general play scores, bandits are beginning to proliferate. This now being countered by competition committees requiring entrants to have a high proportion of competition scores in their recent history. Further, hosting clubs are passing on 'outlandish' winning scores to the player's home club for continuous/annual review purposes..

The only other notable complaint is that the PCC formula is producing far fewer adjustment than the old CSS system. Not surprising though really as it is based on a quite different premise.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Newby

[bladehunter]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

No…I press one button to post all scores.  So essentially yes.

 

edited to add…with guidance from the USGA our club only posts the various club championships as C (competition) scores.  Not events where it’s better ball.

Ok ?  Not sure where the last part comes from.  Who mentioned better ball ?  Or did I just miss that from earlier ? 

[Shilgy]

25 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Ok ?  Not sure where the last part comes from.  Who mentioned better ball ?  Or did I just miss that from earlier ? 

That wasn’t to you really. Some have mentioned C scores and just giving that information to all.  
 

Many in the past have said better ball and match play shouldn’t be posted.  For now, in the US, they are but should not be posted as C scores.

[rogolf]

3 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

That wasn’t to you really. Some have mentioned C scores and just giving that information to all.  
 

Many in the past have said better ball and match play shouldn’t be posted.  For now, in the US, they are but should not be posted as C scores.

What difference does posting scores as C scores make to the handicap index?

[Shilgy]

Just now, rogolf said:

What difference does posting scores as C scores make to the handicap index?

None. It’s just a committee tool.

[rogolf]

14 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

None. It’s just a committee tool.

That's what I thought.  But doesn't the poster make the decision whether it's a C score or not?

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, rogolf said:

That's what I thought.  But doesn't the poster make the decision whether it's a C score or not?

Shouldn’t. It would defeat the purpose.  In our club events golf genius is always used. And scores are posted…with a C as noted for club championships, and others are posted as normal play.

 

IMO an individual should not be able to post a C score.  He could  post his lowest scores as C scores to hide sandbagging.  At least he would be posting them…better than not…but it would lessen the use of the tool for the handicap committee.

[rogolf]

22 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Shouldn’t. It would defeat the purpose.  In our club events golf genius is always used. And scores are posted…with a C as noted for club championships, and others are posted as normal play.

 

IMO an individual should not be able to post a C score.  He could  post his lowest scores as C scores to hide sandbagging.  At least he would be posting them…better than not…but it would lessen the use of the tool for the handicap committee.

You say he "should not be able" but can he do that in the GHIN system?

[bladehunter]

24 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

That wasn’t to you really. Some have mentioned C scores and just giving that information to all.  
 

Many in the past have said better ball and match play shouldn’t be posted.  For now, in the US, they are but should not be posted as C scores.

Gotcha.  No problem.  
 

my thoughts on match play are that it’s a very grey area. We have a match play bracket at my club.  Summer long deal.  I see a ton of mathches closed from the 12th to the 17th hole. Very few go 18.  And it’s usually two low  handicaps playing even that go that far.  So to post that , it leaves you “ guessing “. Which I don’t like. So on my opinion at the very least , only the front 9 should be posted unless all 18 is finished.  But even then we have the concessions to think about.  We have to use a “most likely “ guess there too.  Per my handicap I’d always hear “ you weren’t going to miss that 4 footer “.  But stats say otherwise.  So do we guess based on handicap or stats ?  It’s all just grey. 

[bladehunter]

13 minutes ago, rogolf said:

You say he "should not be able" but can he do that in the GHIN system?

Yes. Most people choose based on whether it’s a round played by the rules or not.  Which is funny.  But true.  Meaning. The only rounds they play where it’s by the rules , are tournament rounds.  Otherwise there’s always “ gimmes “ rolling in the fairway “ or breakfast balls “. Etc. 

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

That's what I thought.  But doesn't the poster make the decision whether it's a C score or not?

Yes the "Competition" designation is one of three choices when posting using GHIN (Home and Away are the other two). It is up to the golfer when they post, although I think that can be overridden after the fact by the club's handicap administrator.

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

You say he "should not be able" but can he do that in the GHIN system?

It appears yes….I've never used it but we have three options

Home

Away

Competion

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Yes. Most people choose based on whether it’s a round played by the rules or not.  Which is funny.  But true.  Meaning. The only rounds they play where it’s by the rules , are tournament rounds.  Otherwise there’s always “ gimmes “ rolling in the fairway “ or breakfast balls “. Etc. 

in our everyday play most groups allow gimme range…12”-18” max. The other stuff is typically not done…at least in any groups I play in.  And the USGA does publish a guide for putts picked up and most likely score.  Way more generous than any gimme range.

 

 

 

Position of the Ball Strokes to be Added If the ball lies on the putting green, and is no more than 5 feet (1.5 metres) from the hole: Add one additional stroke. If the ball lies between 5 feet (1.5 metres) and 20 yards (20 metres) from the hole: Add 2 or 3 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player. If the ball lies more than 20 yards (20 metres) from the hole: Add 3 or 4 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player.

[bladehunter]

30 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

in our everyday play most groups allow gimme range…12”-18” max. The other stuff is typically not done…at least in any groups I play in.  And the USGA does publish a guide for putts picked up and most likely score.  Way more generous than any gimme range.

 

 

 

Position of the Ball Strokes to be Added If the ball lies on the putting green, and is no more than 5 feet (1.5 metres) from the hole: Add one additional stroke. If the ball lies between 5 feet (1.5 metres) and 20 yards (20 metres) from the hole: Add 2 or 3 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player. If the ball lies more than 20 yards (20 metres) from the hole: Add 3 or 4 additional strokes, depending on the position of the ball, the difficulty of the green and the ability of the player.

Exactly.  This would cause a handicap to go up for almost any decent putter .   Probably explains the constant padding I see. And that we try to reign in.  
 

true story. Interclub match play event 3-4 years ago.  My club had to give our sister clubs team 120  something strokes ( 20 player teams ).  That’s just BS.  But the real clincher.  We get roasted by 8 points.  This has been cracked down on , and whittled down to 73 shots this year. We lost by 3 1/2.  😂.  
 

we found out that they were posting only complete scores. Not hole by hole so the system could knock max down to double bogey. So that 11 they made on 3 , was counted as an 11.  Every time.  And were  using the “ most likely score “ rules to the limit.   Got them using both properly , with a focus on holing out in stroke play.  And the shots came down.  Maybe by next year it will be a fair fight.  If they continue to post properly.  The system won’t pull a person down fast enough in my opinion , unless they play a lot of rounds.  Plenty of guys post less than 50 a year.  That means it takes a long time to shuffle off the current 20.  

[nsxguy]

37 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Exactly.  This would cause a handicap to go up for almost any decent putter .   Probably explains the constant padding I see. And that we try to reign in

 

How so ?

 

Who picks up their ball outside of 5 feet ? Almost no one.

 

INSIDE 5 feet, add 1, so that is not going to raise one's handicap. If anything it'd lower it.

 

Outside 5 feet ? Chart seems pretty reasonable. Then again, players picking up outside of 5 feet are likely not going to be making <net double bogey anyway - so adding a stroke or 2 more than you think they might shouldn't matter very often once NDB is factored in.

 

Now if players are ignoring NDB as you say in your interclub matches, that's a completely different issue.

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, bladehunter said:

Exactly.  This would cause a handicap to go up for almost any decent putter .   Probably explains the constant padding I see. And that we try to reign in.  
 

true story. Interclub match play event 3-4 years ago.  My club had to give our sister clubs team 120  something strokes ( 20 player teams ).  That’s just BS.  But the real clincher.  We get roasted by 8 points.  This has been cracked down on , and whittled down to 73 shots this year. We lost by 3 1/2.  😂.  
 

we found out that they were posting only complete scores. Not hole by hole so the system could knock max down to double bogey. So that 11 they made on 3 , was counted as an 11.  Every time.  And were  using the “ most likely score “ rules to the limit.   Got them using both properly , with a focus on holing out in stroke play.  And the shots came down.  Maybe by next year it will be a fair fight.  If they continue to post properly.  The system won’t pull a person down fast enough in my opinion , unless they play a lot of rounds.  Plenty of guys post less than 50 a year.  That means it takes a long time to shuffle off the current 20.  

Hope it works out for you….but you don’t need to shuffle off all 20 scores.  They can, and likely will, go down rather quickly if they play and post properly.  A good score will typically lower your handicap a lot more, and faster, than poor scores will raise it.

[bluedot]

9 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Just to be pedantic here, having an index in the system but posting incorrect (or late) scores is still an issue with the PCC calculation (affecting everyone even if the player never/ever plays in a competition (formal or informal) that makes handicap adjustments or uses handicap for qualification or placement purposes. Yeah, I feel pedantic today. 

 

dave

Well, since we’re being pedantic….😁

 

The PCC algorithm kicks in when the scores on a particular course on a particular day are unexpectedly high or low.  So the guy who routinely posts inaccurate scores would not only be just a small part of the picture, but if he did the same things that day as he usually did, like not putt out or use preferred lies or whatever, his score would be reflective of the way the course played that day just as much as the guy who fully under the Rules.  
 

Said another way, if that guy has a “vanity” 5 index, but on a given day shoots an 85, and most other players that same day post much higher than expected scores, the PCC adjustment would neither know nor care (if algorithms could care…) that he carried a vanity index or a true one.  It’s a completely separate issue.

[bluedot]

6 hours ago, North Butte said:

Correct.

 

With absolutely zero attestation, they can make all the silly posting rules and procedures they like and it has no effect at all on sandbagging.

With all due respect…

 

Sandbagging also occurred back in the days when you had to turn in physical scorecards that were attested. In fact, if anything, sandbagging was much worse in those days, simply because so many scores were never turned in.  Electronic posting has made a positive difference.

 

Electronic posing also makes peer review many, many times easier.  The posting rules and procedures aren’t silly; they actually work quite well.  I willing to say that after 4 decades of competitive golf, I hear MUCH less griping about sandbaggers now than in days gone by.

[DaveLeeNC]

13 hours ago, bluedot said:

Said another way, if that guy has a “vanity” 5 index, but on a given day shoots an 85, and most other players that same day post much higher than expected scores, the PCC adjustment would neither know nor care (if algorithms could care…) that he carried a vanity index or a true one.  It’s a completely separate issue.

 

My experience with vanity cappers is that they tend to post honest 'good hole scores' but fudge things on bad holes. I don't often see them pick up 4 foot putts for birdie but do see them pick up 4 foot putts for bogey (or maybe double for the case of the 20+ golfer). And this will skew the PCC because it will tend to happen more often when there are more higher hole scores. 

 

But I wonder what others observe of the actions of vanity handicappers. 

 

dave

 

ps. I guess that #2 on the list would be incorrect application of penalties (illegal drops/etc) and/or no penalties applied at all. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[larrybud]

On 10/29/2023 at 2:43 AM, Augster said:

100%

 

If you have a GHIN handicap, you have a handicap committee. It’s really that simple. Any other claims are pure nonsense. 
 

Even if you don’t know who they are, you could just email your club president and ask. The handicap committee can afford to be “lazy” and minimal oversight should be involved. It’s a game of honesty after all. 
 

What is the process when you fat-finger a score and need it changed? Who do you contact? THAT’S the committee. 

 

LOL. 

 

Club president? What the hell is that? You guys live in fantasy land. My home club (where I play 30% of my rounds, not where I have my ghin "held") fired the GM And pro this year. There is no committee. The officer manager chick runs the thing. She doesn't know jack about golf, and she sure as heck isn't the handicap committee or giving any oversight to 800 member's scores. 

 

I contact the Golf Association of Michigan who run the whole outfit for the state if I screw up a posting.

Edited October 30, 2023 by larrybud

[larrybud]

On 10/29/2023 at 11:22 AM, 2bGood said:

I said they would get shut down if they did if they did not state they had a handicap committee. You need to sign off every year that you have a committee to keep your ability to issue and keep handicaps when do your USGA paperwork.

 

I was clear you committee may do a bad job, but there is no club issuing handicaps that does not have handicap committee. 

Oh, they have to "sign off" stating it, eh? lol. C'mon man, of course there are clubs issuing handicaps that don't have handicap committees. They'll fill in Bill The Starter's name if that's the requirement. You guys are out of touch.

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

My experience with vanity cappers is that they tend to post honest 'good hole scores' but fudge things on bad holes. I don't often see them pick up 4 foot putts for birdie but do see them pick up 4 foot putts for bogey (or maybe double for the case of the 20+ golfer). And this will skew the PCC because it will tend to happen more often when there are more higher hole scores. 

 

But I wonder what others observe of the actions of vanity handicappers. 

 

dave

 

ps. I guess that #2 on the list would be incorrect application of penalties (illegal drops/etc) and/or no penalties applied at all. 

 

I would think #2 is FAR more prevalent. Especially moving the ball anywhere they please anytime they please, smooth and place in bunkers, bad drops/entry points from PAs, etc.

[larrybud]

16 hours ago, bluedot said:

Electronic posing also makes peer review many, many times easier.

 

How? The only scores of the 73 I have posted this year are my 4 or so competitive rounds, and those scores were posted by the Golf Association of Michigan, not me. The other 69 I could have typed in whatever I wanted and nobody would know any difference. 

 

In fact, GHIN's records which don't state the date of play (only month and year) make it impossible to attest or review anything even if you wanted to, because you don't really know what score applies to which round.

Edited October 30, 2023 by larrybud

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Oh, they have to "sign off" stating it, eh? lol. C'mon man, of course there are clubs issuing handicaps that don't have handicap committees. They'll fill in Bill The Starter's name if that's the requirement. You guys are out of touch.

 

I'd suggest the golf clubs run the gamut.

 

Everything from what you describe, mostly, if not solely, munis and public tracks, to the all-controlling officers of a strictly run "country" club.

[nsxguy]

3 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

How? The only scores of the 73 I have posted this year are my 4 or so competitive rounds, and those scores were posted by the Golf Association of Michigan, not me. The other 69 I could have typed in whatever I wanted and nobody would know any difference. 

 

Peer review has nothing to do with who posted the scores.

 

It has to do with the handicap committee properly reviewing their members' handicaps.

 

Electronic posting/recording has clearly made that process easier. Assuming of course the club HAS such a process, which apparently your "club" does not.

[larrybud]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

Peer review has nothing to do with who posted the scores.

 

It has to do with the handicap committee properly reviewing their members' handicaps.

 

Electronic posting/recording has clearly made that process easier. Assuming of course the club HAS such a process, which apparently your "club" does not.

 

And how does one "review their member's handicaps" when players can post anything they want to their GHIN?

 

I'd also love to hear the process of "reviewing a member's handicap". They look down the list and say "Oh there's Chris, he's a 9.8"... and then what? Chris plays 90% of his rounds on away courses. Nobody has any idea what Chris shot, where Chris played, or if any of it is accurate at all.

 

[Nels55]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

Peer review has nothing to do with who posted the scores.

 

It has to do with the handicap committee properly reviewing their members' handicaps.

 

Electronic posting/recording has clearly made that process easier. Assuming of course the club HAS such a process, which apparently your "club" does not.

I have gone into GHIN "Golfer Lookup" to see if someone I golfed with posted a low score.  It definitely does make it easier to see what scores someone is posting. 

 

My club has a president and a handicap chairman but the don't do much handicap oversight and really only react when something seems way out of whack.  

[nsxguy]

4 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

And how does one "review their member's handicaps" when players can post anything they want to their GHIN?

 

I'd also love to hear the process of "reviewing a member's handicap". They look down the list and say "Oh there's Chris, he's a 9.8"... and then what? Chris plays 90% of his rounds on away courses. Nobody has any idea what Chris shot, where Chris played, or if any of it is accurate at all.

 

 

See Nels post below. If other players AND the committee actually WANT to do something there are ways.

 

In my muni club, even before online postings, the committee knew who played during the week. The guys always talked about the games.

 

We'd go to the MGA printouts and see if the scores were posted. If necessary, we'd ask who won and who shot what. And why wasn't it reported to the club secretary ?

 

We only needed to add a penalty score ONCE. At that time, I believe the penalty score was to record the lowest differential from the player's past 20 rounds. That cured that particular issue. From that point on everybody (we knew about) complied with giving the club their scores from other rounds.

 

Unusual scores, high or low, were highlighted on the printouts so the committee could ask the player about it and correct it if necessary.

 

Stuff like that. The scores within the club were never an issue since, even after online GHIN came about the club secretary entered ALL the scores from the day's play.

[larrybud]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

In my muni club, even before online postings, the committee knew who played during the week. The guys always talked about the games.

 

We'd go to the MGA printouts and see if the scores were posted. If necessary, we'd ask who won and who shot what. And why wasn't it reported to the club secretary ?

 

We only needed to add a penalty score ONCE. At that time, I believe the penalty score was to record the lowest differential from the player's past 20 rounds. That cured that particular issue. From that point on everybody (we knew about) complied with giving the club their scores from other rounds.

 

Unusual scores, high or low, were highlighted on the printouts so the committee could ask the player about it and correct it if necessary.

 

Stuff like that. The scores within the club were never an issue since, even after online GHIN came about the club secretary entered ALL the scores from the day's play.

 

So you guys never play anywhere else, is that what I'm understanding?