World Handicap System Now Out (2020)

[iacas]

I believe I've cleared things up on my end re: par and the playing handicap/course handicap/net double application. I'll see what I can post here in a bit.

[DaveP043]

I can see an issue with the Net Double Bogey stuff, considering how much variation in length some holes have.  Hole par is often established based on the back tees, and sometimes forward tees are 100 yards of more shorter.  A par 5 from the back tees may play as a par 4 from the forward tees, even for the shorter hitters who would commonly play there.  I’ve been told off the record that the likely solution is to have a yardage-based hole par used only for calculating the net double bogey when posting scores.

There would effectively be two "pars."

• One will be the course par used for playing handicaps. This is typically what's on the scorecard, so if the scorecard says par 72 for the Blacks and 72 for the Golds, it'll probably be 72 even if one is 7200 yards and one is 6000 yards. This will be used for the calculation of the playing handicap/course handicap.
• Golfers won't generally see this, but each hole can have its own par value for the application of net double bogey. This doesn't have to add up to the course par.

So the Black tees and Gold tees might be a par 72 for the determination of playing handicap, but for the application of net double bogey, the black tees might add up to a par 73 and the Gold a par 69 or 70.

This would resolve the issues Erik raised in his long post on the previous page. It keeps the relative playing handicaps correct for each player and yet handles the net double bogey stuff for those entering hole by hole. If you don't enter HBH, well, the impact is probably going to be negligible.  There are likely to be only a couple of holes where the “posting par” differs from the "scorecard" par on the hole, the player's high hole scores may or may not all on those holes, and even if they do, that round may or may not be one of the low 8 of the last 20.

I’d bet that many associations have a lot of work to do to enter their course pars and clean things up. If they actually decide to utilize this “posting par”, that adds to the work, but it would make the maximum hole scores more appropriate.

[The Recreational Golfer]

I play golf to have fun with friends. Handicaps never enter into it. This change will not affect my golf in any way.

[mvmac]

Until Jan 6th, do we use our Dec 15th handicap or what our trend was on Jan 31st?

I like this change relative to par since half the guys in my group play from one tee up.

 

[DaveP043]

20 minutes ago, mvmac said:

Until Jan 6th, do we use our Dec 15th handicap or what our trend was on Jan 31st?

I like this change relative to par since half the guys in my group play from one tee up.

 

We've been told to use the December 15 index until the new numbers come out

[mvmac]

6 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

We've been told to use the December 15 index until the new numbers come out

Thanks, that what we did Wed and today.

[DaveP043]

12 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

We've been told to use the December 15 index until the new numbers come out

OK, I wrote that without checking, but now I've confirmed it.  This applies to Virginia, but I imagine the procedure will be the same for any Association that uses GHIN:

Quote

VSGA members should continue to use Handicap Indexes from the Dec. 15, 2019 revision until GHIN comes back online and sends its notification email, scheduled for Jan. 6, 2020. 

It goes on to say that beginning January 1 you should use the WHS procedures, even though you're using the Dec 15 Handicap Index.  So use Net Double Bogey as your max hole score (not ESC), and post the scores as soon as possible after the system comes back up.

[mvmac]

Just curious, what was the reason to go to best 8 out of 20 from the previous 10 out of 20?

7 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

It goes on to say that beginning January 1 you should use the WHS procedures, even though you're using the Dec 15 Handicap Index.  So use Net Double Bogey as your max hole score (not ESC), and post the scores as soon as possible after the system comes back up.

Thanks, makes sense.

[DaveP043]

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

Just curious, what was the reason to go to best 8 out of 20 from the previous 10 out of 20?

I'm not sure.  I know there was some variance, Australia used 8/20 with a 0.93 multiplier, Argentina used 8/16, USGA and South Africa used 10/20 with a 0.96 multiplier.  Europe and CONGU used a ratchet system.  My guess is that 8/20 seemed like a reasonable compromise.  another guess, 8/20 might mean that handicaps will go down a little easier than they will go up.

[reidsou]

1 hour ago, mvmac said:

Just curious, what was the reason to go to best 8 out of 20 from the previous 10 out of 20?

See the "Summary of Changes" PDF available here: https://wagolf.org/keep-score/handicap-information/whs/#section-169888

 

[dennyjones]

So much of this is tough to keep up with but I have a question about a specific course I play occasionally.     Talking Men's tees..

Captain's Club at Woodfield in Grand Blanc, MI.    #9 is a par 5.   Black tees 479, Blue tees 426, White 388 and Gold is 313.   #10 is similar.   Black Tees 501, Blue tees 444, White tees 409 and Gold is 382.  

Will the par change for the white and gold tees?   According to the new system par 5 start at 450 yards.

 

Never mind.... According to National Course Rating Database, par is different for different tees.   That is new...

 

 

 

Adding another question....If a course doesn't have tees set up for gender (red for men) will the new handicap system work the same way?

Edited January 5, 2020 by dennyjones
another question

[DaveP043]

37 minutes ago, dennyjones said:

Adding another question....If a course doesn't have tees set up for gender (red for men) will the new handicap system work the same way?

There will be separate ratings for men and women.  Many tees will be rated for both, but its possible some tees will only be rated for one or the other

[dennyjones]

9 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

There will be separate ratings for men and women.  Many tees will be rated for both, but its possible some tees will only be rated for one or the other

The red tees at the course near me are only rated for women.   If I play from the red tees can I still use the same "formula" to get rating and slope for men?  What about par?

Edited January 5, 2020 by dennyjones

[iacas]

@dennyjones those pars won’t be that far apart by the time your season starts.

[iacas]

I'm "discussing" the Dean Knuth article (this one) on another site, but Dean's "issue" with the WHS seems to be just about the application of "par."

I respect the work Dean did in the past, but he's off-base in that article in a major way. Par does two things in the WHS, and both are positive(s).

• It "bakes in" to the playing handicap the different strokes players should get from different tees.
• It allows for a more representative application of NDB (net double bogey).

A brief explanation of each:

Baking In Different Tees

Previously, a 9.3 playing another 9.3 from two different tees (let's say 73.4/139 and 68.3/129) would have done this calculation (or read the numbers off the sheet posted in the pro shop or locker room):

A: 9.3 * 139/113 = 11.4 = 11 CH
B: 9.3 * 128/113 = 10.5 = 11 CH

Then they would have had to take the difference in course rating, with B giving A five shots (73.4 - 68.3).

Now, the course rating difference is "baked in" to the formula posted on that sheet in the pro shop or locker room:

A: 9.3 * 139/113 + 73.4 - 72 = 12.8 = 13 CH
B: 9.3 * 128/113 + 68.3 - 72 = 6.8 = 7 CH

The players don't have to know how to do this calculation. Tournament directors won't have to do this calculation (which can get dicey when you have players playing an event from 3, 4, even 5 sets of tees).

Yes, I see that the old difference was five shots while the new one is six, but I think this is an improvement. You see, before, the old way, the figures were rounded twice. Even though the players were 0.9 strokes apart from their un-rounded course handicap, both round to 11. Then the course rating difference of 4.9 is rounded up to five. Effectively, in the second, the 0.9 is added to the 4.9 so 5.8 rounds up to six. The six-stroke difference is more accurate, IMO.

Application of Net Double Bogey

Let's use a 5.1 index golfer who can play the back tees and gets 7 strokes but plays the forward tees sometimes and gets 2 strokes.

Consider the third or fourth stroke index hole on the course: from the back tees, it's a 562-yard par five. From the forward tees, it's a 471-yard par five.

He gets to post an 8 from the back tees, as he's playing off 7 (to the course), but from the forward tees, where the hole is almost a par four, he can only post a 7 because the stroke index of the hole (3 or 4) is higher than his playing handicap (2). This makes sense. He's playing an easier course, so he shouldn't be able to post as many gross triples.

[DaveP043]

On 1/2/2020 at 2:01 PM, DaveP043 said:

I can see an issue with the Net Double Bogey stuff, considering how much variation in length some holes have.  Hole par is often established based on the back tees, and sometimes forward tees are 100 yards of more shorter.  A par 5 from the back tees may play as a par 4 from the forward tees, even for the shorter hitters who would commonly play there.  I’ve been told off the record that the likely solution is to have a yardage-based hole par used only for calculating the net double bogey when posting scores.

There would effectively be two "pars."

• One will be the course par used for playing handicaps. This is typically what's on the scorecard, so if the scorecard says par 72 for the Blacks and 72 for the Golds, it'll probably be 72 even if one is 7200 yards and one is 6000 yards. This will be used for the calculation of the playing handicap/course handicap.
• Golfers won't generally see this, but each hole can have its own par value for the application of net double bogey. This doesn't have to add up to the course par.

So the Black tees and Gold tees might be a par 72 for the determination of playing handicap, but for the application of net double bogey, the black tees might add up to a par 73 and the Gold a par 69 or 70.

This would resolve the issues Erik raised in his long post on the previous page. It keeps the relative playing handicaps correct for each player and yet handles the net double bogey stuff for those entering hole by hole. If you don't enter HBH, well, the impact is probably going to be negligible.  There are likely to be only a couple of holes where the “posting par” differs from the "scorecard" par on the hole, the player's high hole scores may or may not all on those holes, and even if they do, that round may or may not be one of the low 8 of the last 20.

I’d bet that many associations have a lot of work to do to enter their course pars and clean things up. If they actually decide to utilize this “posting par”, that adds to the work, but it would make the maximum hole scores more appropriate.

To follow up on this, I checked numbers for MidPines in Southern Pines, NC.  The National Course Rating Database indicates par 72 from both Blue and White tees, although the CR's are 71.7 and 69.8.  GHIN shows the White tees as Par 70.  On the hole by hole, Holes 5 and 6 are par 5 from the Blue tees, but par 4 from the White.  I can't get a current scorecard from the MidPines website to compare.  

[iacas]

That’s all going to be in a state of flux for awhile.

[DeadMan]

I'm very glad that Colorado's posting season doesn't start until March 15. Hopefully, the bugs will all be worked out by then.