Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

This is extra text with a test link..

Register Now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World Handicapping System - 2020 (next year!)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Has anyone had their course rerated vis a vis handicap stroke allocation?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by sikoram View Post
      Has anyone had their course rerated vis a vis handicap stroke allocation?
      A club committee has been looking at ours. Are you suggesting that someone else (other than the club itself) would be doing it? The guidelines are different than the past and are in the handicap manual.

      Comment


      • #78
        Understood. The BC Golf Association is the final arbiter of par and stroke allocation. I will find the wording they used.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by sikoram View Post
          Understood. The BC Golf Association is the final arbiter of par and stroke allocation. I will find the wording they used.
          It is very unusual for any authority, other than the club, to mandate par and stroke indices.
          But they will often make recommendations

          The Rules of Golf state: “The Committee is responsible for publishing on the scorecard or somewhere else that is visible (for example, near the first tee) the order of holes at which handicap strokes are to be given or received.” (See Rules of Golf, Committee Procedures, Rule 5I (4)).

          Appendix F shows the WHS recommendations for Par.
          Putting isn't golf, greens should be treated almost the same as water hazards: you land on them, then add two strokes to your score.
          - Chi Chi Rodriguez

          Comment


          • #80
            I think we are at cross purposes. We are waiting for the BCGA's recommendations then we are going to do our changes. As an example, an uphill par 5 playing as our hole # 18, 475 yards for the women's/gold (the term Ladies is out at our club) is allocated the #2 stroke hole. It has an uphill tee shot and an uphill approach shot, so plays probably in the area of 525 yards. We would like to reallocate the 2nd stroke hole to earlier in the round for match play purposes etc. This will cause a cascade effect. So we are holding off printing new score cards until all the changes are made. Including advice from the BCGA.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by sikoram View Post
              I think we are at cross purposes. We are waiting for the BCGA's recommendations then we are going to do our changes. As an example, an uphill par 5 playing as our hole # 18, 475 yards for the women's/gold (the term Ladies is out at our club) is allocated the #2 stroke hole. It has an uphill tee shot and an uphill approach shot, so plays probably in the area of 525 yards. We would like to reallocate the 2nd stroke hole to earlier in the round for match play purposes etc. This will cause a cascade effect. So we are holding off printing new score cards until all the changes are made. Including advice from the BCGA.
              While the previous stroke allocation process considered match play, the new one does not - it is strictly based on the difficulty of making par. See Appendix E of the new (USGA) handicapping manual.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by rulie View Post

                While the previous stroke allocation process considered match play, the new one does not - it is strictly based on the difficulty of making par. See Appendix E of the new (USGA) handicapping manual.
                Appendix E says:
                The recommended methodology and procedures for determining a stroke index allocation within the six triad structure, designed to accommodate both stroke play and match play formats,
                Putting isn't golf, greens should be treated almost the same as water hazards: you land on them, then add two strokes to your score.
                - Chi Chi Rodriguez

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by aaagc View Post

                  Appendix E says:
                  The recommended methodology and procedures for determining a stroke index allocation within the six triad structure, designed to accommodate both stroke play and match play formats,
                  However, it also provides the formula, with this preamble:
                  "It is recommended that a stroke index allocation be applied over 18-holes, split into six triads with each hole ranked on its playing difficulty relative to par. The difficulty of each hole can be determined objectively using hole-by-hole data provided from the Course Rating procedure as follows:
                  Scratch value + bogey value - (2 x par)" = strokes over par

                  So, now the holes are rated in difficulty to make par, without much consideration for match play - the previous procedure emphasized "difficulty" based on where the higher handicap player needed a stroke to obtain a half on that hole, regardless of par for that hole.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    So I finally got a copy of the 2020 handicapping manual. Scarce as hen's teeth. We also got the suggested changes from BCGA. Now that everyone I sent the changes to has taken their CBD oil, we can get down to cases. From the feedback I got, the contentious issues are with the middle triad as the # 1 hcp hole on the front for the men and middle triad as the # 2 hcp hole on the back for women.

                    The men's # 1 is a 208 yard par 3 (hole 6) playing into the prevailing wind coming off the Pacific Ocean fronted by a yellow staked penalty area. The penalty area covers most of the green from the tee box. Bunkers ring the back of the green with No Play areas between the bunkers. It was the # 3 hcp hole and based on it's position in the middle triad it now assumes the # 1 hcp hole.

                    My question is "what is the genesis of the middle triad suggestion'? Is it to get the low hcp holes into the round early or earlier or am I missing something?
                    Last edited by sikoram; Dec 5, 2019, 06:14 PM. Reason: typo

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by sikoram View Post
                      So I finally got a copy of the 2020 handicapping manual. Scarce as hen's teeth. We also got the suggested changes from BCGA. Now that everyone I sent the changes to has taken their CBD oil, we can get down to cases. From the feedback I got, the contentious issues are with the middle triad as the # 1 hcp hole on the front for the men and middle triad as the # 2 hcp hole on the back for women.

                      The men's # 1 is a 208 yard par 3 (hole 6) playing into the prevailing wind coming off the Pacific Ocean fronted by a yellow staked penalty area. The penalty area covers most of the green from the tee box. Bunkers ring the back of the green with No Play areas between the bunkers. It was the # 3 hcp hole and based on it's position in the middle triad it now assumes the # 1 hcp hole.

                      My question is "what is the genesis of the middle triad suggestion'? Is it to get the low hcp holes into the round early or earlier or am I missing something?
                      Not sure of the logic of having the #1 in the front nine middle triad and #2 in the back nine middle triad (might be based on the Australia Golf's recommendation for a standard stroke hole index for all courses?). But, as the instructions say, you can move it out of the triad into the last hole of the first triad or the first hole of the third triad.

                      Comment


                      • #86

                        https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usg...USGA_Final.pdf

                        I think the handicap committee will need to use good judgment in ranking the holes, since some of the suggestions in Appendix E seems contradictory, as sikoram and rulie imply. The Appendix E procedures are recommendations, not orders.

                        I believe that I've read in the past that Dean Knuth, the "Pope of Slope", said / wrote that the ranking of hole difficulties isn't especially important, if players are using properly-calculated (i.e without sandbagging or other manipulation) handicaps. (But I can't find that quote, so I'm not sure).
                        Last edited by OKHC; Dec 6, 2019, 12:06 AM. Reason: clarity

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by OKHC View Post
                          https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usg...USGA_Final.pdf

                          I think the handicap committee will need to use good judgment in ranking the holes, since some of the suggestions in Appendix E seems contradictory, as sikoram and rulie imply. The Appendix E procedures are recommendations, not orders.

                          I believe that I've read in the past that Dean Knuth, the "Pope of Slope", said / wrote that the ranking of hole difficulties isn't especially important, if players are using properly-calculated (i.e without sandbagging or other manipulation) handicaps. (But I can't find that quote, so I'm not sure).
                          It is getting harder to sandbag although not impossible. My club of 255 members has several leagues and with computerised scoring systems (Florida, Stableford etc) etc and the ability to do Handicap Lookup on your cell phone and score results in our club published on line and a few $$$$money games, everyone checks the usual suspects. And, that is how it should be. With the WHS limiting the upper range of handicap adjustment and immediately lowering handicaps for exceptional scores, sandbagging should be reduced.

                          I am just in the throes of rolling out the WHS at our course, since we play year round. It's a big learning curve and our association is a big help.

                          Press on regardless! (Did someone say press???)

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            We had a bunch of official types walk our course for what I was told was a new rating (Indian Wells). I don't know who rates the difficulty of the holes but I can say without hesitation the ratings weren't close to reality.

                            Sort of off-topic I found it interesting our higher ups did away with the white tees a couple of years ago. The blues are only 5900 yards or so but the majority of golfers were playing this set anyway. What I am noticing as we age is more and more golfers playing our up tees which are yellow or green. Even some very good single digit cappers are leaning this way.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by nomullies View Post
                              We had a bunch of official types walk our course for what I was told was a new rating (Indian Wells). I don't know who rates the difficulty of the holes but I can say without hesitation the ratings weren't close to reality.
                              Have you seen the official ratings hole by hole or just the Course and Bogey Ratings? How did you do your assessment?
                              Putting isn't golf, greens should be treated almost the same as water hazards: you land on them, then add two strokes to your score.
                              - Chi Chi Rodriguez

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Our course was done by BCGA with Stroke Index Progression showing the Hole, Difficulty Value, Ranking. Odds/even Distribution and Stroke Index. I would post it but my PDF won't let me copy the document.

                                Comment


                                Join The TGN Email List

                                Collapse

                                Recently Joined

                                Collapse

                                Topics: 173,534   Posts: 1,814,846   Members: 47,103   Active Members: 174
                                Welcome to our newest member, Jiceman.

                                Today's Birthdays

                                Collapse

                                PGA Leaderboard

                                Collapse


                                TGN Sponsors

                                Working...
                                X