WHS and all that jazz!

First topic message reminder :

You asked and I delivered. Here we can discuss all things World Handicap System. Like it or not, it comes into effect on Monday November 2nd so we’re going to have to get used to Handicap Index, Course Handicap, Playing Handicap, Slope Rating, Course Ratings and everything in between

super_realist wrote:No wonder so many Yanks have such eyebrow raising handicaps then. That's a cheats charter if it's set up like that.

If people want to cheat at golf i think they're always going to find a way. I suspect a more common way would be by quietly improving their lie as and when needed ("we're playing winter rules right ?") or routinely giving themselves putts. But that would be for vanity -- having an undeserved low handicap. Isn't it more common for cheaters to aim for a high handicap right before entering certain competitions ? As with most things over here, there's a huge variety in how its handled. So I bet there are clubs where you have to hand in score cards after a round, appropriately verified etc. And competition play is sure to be different.

I'm not so sure plunky. Maybe it's the difference between a CONGU and a WHS handicap but the amount of Americans I've played with at St Andrews who claim to have a low handicap but are more like 5-6 is incredible.

I think only two players from America I've played with ever lived up to their handicap claim from out perspective.

Super

I have also played with quite a few Americans and would agree that their handicaps would not translate well to CONGU. It is noticeable at the lower end, when I play a 3 or under CONGU player you know you are up against a seriously good player, while the 3 or 4 handicap Americans I have played with felt more like 7 or 8 handicappers.

If you want some further examples of this watch No laying up. Two of them are outright duffers and both claim single figure handicaps. Then there is another guy (Icarito) who claims to be of 3 but has never seems to break 80. Solly is +1 and to be honest he is pretty good so I could see him being just above scratch in the UK.

McLaren wrote:Super

I have also played with quite a few Americans and would agree that their handicaps would not translate well to CONGU. It is noticeable at the lower end, when I play a 3 or under CONGU player you know you are up against a seriously good player, while the 3 or 4 handicap Americans I have played with felt more like 7 or 8 handicappers.

If you want some further examples of this watch No laying up. Two of them are outright duffers and both claim single figure handicaps. Then there is another guy (Icarito) who claims to be of 3 but has never seems to break 80. Solly is +1 and to be honest he is pretty good so I could see him being just above scratch in the UK.

I have seen those guys and would agree that they are nowhere near as good as they claim to be. 
Conversely I have watched Rick Shields videos and he thinks he is probably around a 3 on the CONGU scale, but to me he looks better than that, but then again these YouTube guys are all about the driver and less about the short game. Not seen one of them with a strong short game. Not sure about Pete Finch though, as I stopped watching his channel when it became all self indulgent.

I have no idea if this is an American only nuance, but whenever I invite guests to play my course (I do a good bit of client entertainment), I ask them what their handicap is. By far the worst answer is "I'm a bogey golfer." No one that has said that to me has ever come close to breaking 100 at my course.

Is that like someone who plays "level fives"?
I've never heard anyone say they were a bogey golfer. I would just say I was "sh1te"

super_realist wrote:Has anyone handed in a score yet under the new system? If so how did it go and what difference did it make to your handicap index?

We play our first competition under the new Rules on Saturday. I’ll let you know how it goes. Looking at the forecast, the Playing Conditions Calculation (PCC) adjustment might have an effect, too.

McLaren wrote:Ok, so my SGU app now has a gen play section withing the handicap tab. But no clubs actually show up.

Has your club registered correctly? If not, it won’t show. Try taking it up with them.

LadyPutt wrote:

McLaren wrote:Ok, so my SGU app now has a gen play section withing the handicap tab. But no clubs actually show up.

Has your club registered correctly? If not, it won’t show. Try taking it up with them.

A day or so later some clubs showed up. I played an away course last week and it wasn't on the list though.

LadyPutt wrote:

super_realist wrote:Has anyone handed in a score yet under the new system? If so how did it go and what difference did it make to your handicap index?

We play our first competition under the new Rules on Saturday. I’ll let you know how it goes. Looking at the forecast, the Playing Conditions Calculation (PCC) adjustment might have an effect, too.

Well it all went far mores smoothly than I anticipated. Everyone checked in on the app at the course, played their game, submitted their scores and the handicaps were updated at midnight as we expected (I went up .8 after a dreadful round   ). No nasty surprises though and everyone was happy. Whew! Next comp is on December 5th. No-one has done a General Play score yet, though. That might be a whole different scenario!

I had a general play score last weekend LP. No problem at all other than the app locked reset at one point which meant I had to remember and reinout my scores for 15 holes

Super

As you will attest having played an inland course recently, I will not be handing in any general play rounds for quite some time. Every inland course I have played in the last couple of weeks has been a nightmare. I doesn't even feel like it has been an especially wet month so far.

Super, I also played the castle at the end of October and it was pretty soft.

What did you think of The Castle? I remember you slated it before without having played it.

I think when you break it down it's well designed. It's the first course I've seen which actually takes the prevailing wind into account and the large variety of tees and bail out areas for shorter hitters demonstrate a lot of thought has gone onto it.
I also like that the Links were brave enough to go for a course which isn't as flat as those down at the beach.

You might say the greens have too much slope on them, but if you're in in control and play to the right part of the green you can score well. It was the first St Andrews course I shot in the 60's on.

Super

The greens and the course were disjointed. Almost every green had sort of raised false front type entrance that discourages the ground game. The front of the greens almost pull a ball which has been run up away from the desired line.

I didn't mind the slopes of the greens in general once you got on them, but why all the greens were raised above the fairways puzzled me. Like you say it really forces you to hit the correct quadrant of the green. I had quite a few 3 putts. I just don't get why the greens and the green surrounds are not more synergized, a hallmark of all the good links course.  Some of the contours on the greens needed to be softened just a little and extended out in to the areas around the greens.

Although, it is not a links course, the turf isn't proper links and it doesn't play like a links.

It is really tough. I personally wouldn't be handing a general play card in when playing it.

The routing takes advantage of the views and there are some quite spectacular views to be had at various points.


Also maybe it's just me but the 16th and 17th could be a little homage to Alister MacKenzie?

The green on 16 sort of reminds me of the 16th green on Pasatiempo and the 17th hole on the castle might be as close as most of us will get to playing Cypress Points 16th.


Pasatiempo 16th green



Cypress Point 16th




Overall I get why you wouldn't build a TOC clone but I just don't get what the Castle is meant to be. I probably wouldn't play it again unless someone comped me a round.


PS, it got a Doak 0.

A course so contrived and unnatural that it may poison your mind, one I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that waste ridiculous sums of money in their construction, and probably shouldn't have been built in the first place.

It is certainly contrived and unnatural but not sure about the not being built at all. It just maybe should have been built a little differently.

I don't really care what Doak thinks.
For all I know Doak is a complete hacker and the course could be far too difficult for him. Doak doesn't seem to be happy unless the course dates from the 18th and 19th century. Times change and he ought to acknowledge that.

It's a course you need to think your way round and which tests every aspect of your game, something TOC, a course he gives a high score to, certainly doesn't.
It is a hard course and it's definitely one which favours the better players. He needs to stop being such a puritan and a prude.

I really wish I hadn't included the Doak bit. I would rather you just responded to my thoughts on the course.

Then why did you include Doak's thoughts? Why do they matter? He seems only capable of seeing golf through a very narrow view as a traditionalist.

I would say its a course that grows on you. A course you develop a way to get round but it does mean a player who can shape a shot and alter their trajectory to get the best out of it and someone who can play more than just bump and run chips.

What it requires is imagination and shot making. I understand your criticism but think that would change if you played it more often. I have maybe played it 50 times now.

When did you play Pasatiempo Mac?

JAS wrote:When did you play Pasatiempo Mac?

A few years back. Probably in the top 5 courses I have played. A wonderful golfing experience.

McLaren wrote:

JAS wrote:When did you play Pasatiempo Mac?

A few years back. Probably in the top 5 courses I have played. A wonderful golfing experience.

Aye, I've played it 3 times, was lucky enough to get paired up with a member 1st time so subsequent visits were as a members guest. Some fantastic holes on it, 16 probably the pick but love 11 as well (apparently Byron Nelsons favourite hole in all of golf). Bit of an understated Clubhouse but pays good homage to its history and MacKenzie.

So, before we come out of lockdown, can I check my understanding of the calculation is right. As far as I can see its Hcp Index x (SlopeRating/113) + (Course Rating - Par)

In the case of me off the back pegs at Pasatiempo that would mean...

4.6 x (141/113) + (72.5 - 70) = 8.2 so 8 shots??

No idea Jas. I'll just let the app sort it out.

JAS wrote:So, before we come out of lockdown, can I check my understanding of the calculation is right. As far as I can see its Hcp Index x (SlopeRating/113) + (Course Rating - Par)

In the case of me off the back pegs at Pasatiempo that would mean...

4.6 x (141/113) + (72.5 - 70) = 8.2 so 8 shots??

I think you are correct JAS. I hope to find it easier by just looking at a noticeboard in the clubhouse or on the 1st/10th tees.

Just for fun I did the calculation for Carnoustie...off the yellows I'd currently get 11!! and thats before any PCC for a "breeze"

Jesus, that's savage. What is the slope and course rating?
My handicap doesnt seem to change at all on any course which is what I'd expect.

Tried to copy a table but it doesn't seem to show properly.
Yellow tees Slope = 135 and Course = 73.6 off a par of 70
White 139 and 75.2 (Par 72)
Championship 143 and 77.4 (Par 72)

These figures are off USGA site, so might not be exactly correct.

Sounds about the same as The Castle.
Same Slope off the Whites. Similar course rating.

Anyone ever played Harrogate? Highest slope rating in UK at 155.

super_realist wrote:

Anyone ever played Harrogate? Highest slope rating in UK at 155.

Where did you find that number Super? On the USGA site it's 130.
West Course at Wentworth 153

Googled the highest slope index in UK. Highly likely its wrong though

Edit, it was me jumping the gun.

super_realist wrote:Sounds about the same as The Castle.
Same Slope off the Whites. Similar course rating.

Anyone ever played Harrogate? Highest slope rating in UK at 155.

Jeez, 155?? is it 7000 yards long with 10 yard wide fairways and 300 bunkers??

From what I saw Carnoustie (yellow tees) was 145 & 75.1 (Par 70)

The highest I can see from what I've played is Trumps at 149 & 77.3 (Par 72)

It'll be interesting to see how much if anything PCC's play a part in Opens I play in next year i.e. if they're going to move as much as the CSS's used to in "testing" conditions.

JAS wrote:

super_realist wrote:Sounds about the same as The Castle.
Same Slope off the Whites. Similar course rating.

Anyone ever played Harrogate? Highest slope rating in UK at 155.

Jeez, 155?? is it 7000 yards long with 10 yard wide fairways and 300 bunkers??

From what I saw Carnoustie (yellow tees) was 145 & 75.1 (Par 70)

The highest I can see from what I've played is Trumps at 149 & 77.3 (Par 72)

It'll be interesting to see how much if anything PCC's play a part in Opens I play in next year i.e. if they're going to move as much as the CSS's used to in "testing" conditions.

I read it incorrectly Jas, it's only 130.

JAS wrote:

super_realist wrote:Sounds about the same as The Castle.
Same Slope off the Whites. Similar course rating.

Anyone ever played Harrogate? Highest slope rating in UK at 155.

Jeez, 155?? is it 7000 yards long with 10 yard wide fairways and 300 bunkers??

From what I saw Carnoustie (yellow tees) was 145 & 75.1 (Par 70)

The highest I can see from what I've played is Trumps at 149 & 77.3 (Par 72)

It'll be interesting to see how much if anything PCC's play a part in Opens I play in next year i.e. if they're going to move as much as the CSS's used to in "testing" conditions.

I read it incorrectly Jas, it's only 130.

In terms of playing conditions JAS, I'm wondering how much will be mitigated by cheating if you are handing in a score in general play, let's say there are two dozen other players out there doing the same, you just know there are going to be gimmes and preferred lies going on and the odd 5 going down as a four.

Another thing I noticed about that general play is that you have to stipulate tees, no one will check that you are choosing Whites in the app but that you could just go and play the yellows instead and give yourself an advantage. I really think this whole thing is of most benefit to that handicap manipulators.

super_realist wrote:I really think this whole thing is of most benefit to that handicap manipulators.

But hasn't it always been so as Lady Putt mentioned earlier? Golf relies on self honesty and calling penalties on oneself, even if no one else saw them.

When any of my mates are putting in a card for general play (we call it a supplementary card), we are rigorous with no gimmies etc. As we normally play in three groups, anyone putting in a card goes out in the latter groups, so not to hold the rest of us up.

Not really. Most competitions in my experience involve a draw where you won't necessarily know who you are playing with.

It seems to me that general play rounds with your mates are far more likely to regress to people being far more lax with blind eyes being turned. With nothing at stake people are also not required to check scorecards, there's nothing posted online and there's no reason to watch what anyone is doing. 2 people could post a score without even gojng onto the course

super_realist wrote:Not really. Most competitions in my experience involve a draw where you won't necessarily know who you are playing with

Huh? I am not talking about competitions - yes we have random draws - I'm talking about non competition rounds with your mates when you can put a card in.

Supplementaries aren't something that are that common, mostly apply to higher handicappers and are only permitted at certain times of the year and may be limited to a certain number of cards

I see a lot of people more likely to ditch medals and just play with their mates on a General Play basis.

My point about competitions is that if a group who usually play together but are forced by competition into a draw where thay have to play with randoms they now have the option of putting in a counting score whenever they like, why would they do it with people they don't want to play with when they can just do it with their mates? How many people actually care about the competiton unless it's one of the big ones?

Super does have a point. I think in club comps the notion of "protecting the field" is mostly adhered to. Meaning you are more keen eyed for playing partners following the rules to the letter.

Even unintentionally dropping those standards just a little will make for some lower rounds than would have been achieved in a competition.

And on people checking out the scores of others in comps, with systems like howdidido believe me every club has guys pouring over the rounds entered. I know a few guys who will keep an eye on what is happening in the comps by going through the scores and looking for anything out of the ordinary. Will the supplementary scores be available for this oversight?

As far as I know they aren't Mac, at least not in the way Howdidido was.
I think what they should do is send the card of the player to the marker, because the current system allows the player to mark their own score and then a playong partner simply has to sign it without ever having paid attention to what was actually scored.

Super

I Poopie you not a guy in his 50's or 60's who had already told me he had been a member for 30 years  asked me recently what the unplayable ball rule was. He genuinely thought you could just go as far back as you want "in line with the pin", i.e in his book anywhere. After all these years he hadn't realised it is back on a line between your ball and the pin. This guy had just been dropping it basically wherever he wanted.

And presumably his playing partners hadn't bothered to correct him.

McLaren wrote:Super

I Poopie you not a guy in his 50's or 60's who had already told me he had been a member for 30 years  asked me recently what the unplayable ball rule was. He genuinely thought you could just go as far back as you want "in line with the pin", i.e in his book anywhere. After all these years he hadn't realised it is back on a line between your ball and the pin. This guy had just been dropping it basically wherever he wanted.

And presumably his playing partners hadn't bothered to correct him.

There's loads like that Mac, I've seen guys who don't know when you should use one club or two for relief what side of a road to drop it on, what constitutes a rabbit scraping or a staked tree, cwhat the nearest point of relief is etc and some very dubious usage of the casual water rule, basically just looking for firm turf.
It might not be intentional cheating, but it's still breaking the rules.

The annoying thing is that I know my strokes gained from rules over a season is negative, just because I know and follow the rules.

You do wonder if a theory test like you get with driving should be mandatory at the start of every season before you can play in club comps.

Some golf rules are silly though and needless. I will say that.

super_realist wrote:Supplementaries aren't something that are that common, mostly apply to higher handicappers and are only permitted at certain times of the year and may be limited to a certain number of cards

Not at our club Super. Put them in as often as we want, as long as we register first. Often it is done as a "challenge" to a mate, so you both put cards in, but to make sure you play to your best the whole round.
It seems there are restrictions for lower handicaps Super. apologies for not knowing.

I'm never wrong wrote:

super_realist wrote:Supplementaries aren't something that are that common, mostly apply to higher handicappers and are only permitted at certain times of the year and may be limited to a certain number of cards

Not at our club Super. Put them in as often as we want, as long as we register first. Often it is done as a "challenge" to a mate, so you both put cards in, but to make sure you play to your best the whole round.
It seems there are restrictions for lower handicaps Super. apologies for not knowing.

Perhaps clubs and regions have their own restrictions.
We had some glorious autumn weather and a course in great nick but wasn't allowed to out a supplementary in due to my handicap. Not sure why there was this restriction but it was most annoying. All remedied now though and the club can whistle for medals. I'm not interested when I can put a score in without having to play with the tossers at the club.

super_realist wrote:

Perhaps clubs and regions have their own restrictions.
We had some glorious autumn weather and a course in great nick but wasn't allowed to out a supplementary in due to my handicap. Not sure why there was this restriction but it was most annoying. All remedied now though and the club can whistle for medals. I'm not interested when I can put a score in without having to play with the tossers at the club.

What courses in and around Edinburgh will you play to get some supplementary scores in midweek?

None Mac, I'm not a member of any.

You don't have to be a member to enter a supplementary. You must play somewhere in town reasonably regularly given you live here?

No Mac, I don't. I don't know anyone who plays golf here. It was a random invite I got at the weekend.
I do have friend of a friend at Archerfield, so thats a possibility as I've had a few rounds there.
I would consider joining somewhere in Edinburgh if it wasn't so ridiculously expensive for really average courses

As we’ve been playing golf, subject to weather disruptions which caused the cancellation on Medals in December, January and February, all winter here in Scotland, we have been using WHS for a few competitions now. There are a few anomalies, especially with members who are relatively new to the game and so don’t have 20 scores in their record, but apart from that everyone seems to be settling in. They still can’t get their heads around having a Playing Handicap which is 95% of their Course Handicap, but it’s all a matter of familiarity. I still can’t encourage my members to submit General Play (formerly Supplementary) scores! Anyone else any experience of using the new system or is it too soon?

We start playing golf again on Monday down here in England. My club has said no competitions till after May Day Bank holiday. Presumably to let players get the rust out of their game. So we haven't had any usage yet. My group like the fact that they get "extra" shots as compared to their Playing Handicap. They're quite happy to put in general play cards.