Alterations to WHS?

[rosecott]

I’ve not heard anyone outside this forum mention PCC let alone be irked by not knowing how it’s calculated.

I can’t see why any normal golfer would need to know.

Average Joe isnt even interested in demystification. A minute minority might be.

Totally agree.

As someone has already pointed out, CSS was the antecedent of PCC. The tables used to calculate CSS were not a state secret but I never heard of any player demanding to know exactly how they had been calculated.

 

[Swango1980]

I’ve not heard anyone outside this forum mention PCC let alone be irked by not knowing how it’s calculated.

I can’t see why any normal golfer would need to know.

Isn't that the whole point of forums like this? For the few people who are geeky enough to even think about such details, to get their concerns off their chest, when they know absolutely no one in the real world could care less listening to our moans.

 

[clubchamp98]

Isn't that the whole point of forums like this? For the few people who are geeky enough to even think about such details, to get their concerns off their chest, when they know absolutely no one in the real world could care less listening to our moans.

Yes need to know and want to know are two very different things.

Why is it so secret?

 

[IanM]

Yes need to know and want to know are two very different things.

Why is it so secret?

Then it would be open to analysis...and potential challenge.

Ah well, back to playing qualifiers in paddy fields and look forward to holes you never played or finished counting for handicap

 

[Voyager EMH]

Unless 31/32 points is playing to handicap at your course, your expectation of what is normal is too high.

The methodology isn't a secret - there's an overview right there in the manual. However, you would probably need a degree in maths/stats to interpret that into a useful understanding of how it works and what to expect. And you would then need the secret stuff (data, trigger points, etc.) to reproduce the calculations accurately.

Clubchamp98 stated that he thought 34 points to be a normal score.
If 31/32 points were perceived to be playing to handicap, I would think that about 28 points would be a normal score not 34 points.

Have I got this completely wrong again?

Bit in bold - I've got one. From 1982, though, so a bit rusty now.

 

[wjemather]

Clubchamp98 stated that he thought 34 points to be a normal score.
If 31/32 points were perceived to be playing to handicap, I would think that about 28 points would be a normal score not 34 points.

Have I got this completely wrong again?

Bit in bold - I've got one. From 1982, though, so a bit rusty now.

Yes, I meant 37-38.

I've been ill - that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it!

 

[Backsticks]

Clubchamp98 stated that he thought 34 points to be a normal score.
If 31/32 points were perceived to be playing to handicap, I would think that about 28 points would be a normal score not 34 points.

Have I got this completely wrong again?

Bit in bold - I've got one. From 1982, though, so a bit rusty now.

I do r think thats correct. Assuming to extreme easy or difficult course, then most correct handicaps will have most handicap golfers score in the range 30-38 points. There 8 from 20 will average 36. Their 20 average will be more like 32-33. So a spread in that range is playing to handicap. There is no precise number that is playing to hc, as hc is determined by a spread, not a single value.

 

[wjemather]

I do r think thats correct. Assuming to extreme easy or difficult course, then most correct handicaps will have most handicap golfers score in the range 30-38 points. There 8 from 20 will average 36. Their 20 average will be more like 32-33. So a spread in that range is playing to handicap. There is no precise number that is playing to hc, as hc is determined by a spread, not a single value.

Yes, there is - the play-to-handicap score is defined in the rules and guidance.

 

[Genu9]

Today is the big day. Clubs participating in a Webinar from EG about the changes. So with all the info disseminated we'll all be told tomorrow what's happening.
Don't hold your breath though.

 

[NearHull]

I’ll be logging into the EG Webinar - I am not holding my breath but I do expect some discussion on the impending changes.

 

[rulefan]

The only mention I've heard, is how hard it is to predict, and/or folk calling it the WHS version of CSS

The only reason for Average Joe to need to know would be a desire to demystify.

I've mentioned the changes on here to a few blokes and they just laughed and shrugged shoulders.

I have never seen or heard of anyone checking the tables to determine just how the CSS was calculated.

 

[rosecott]

I have never seen or heard of anyone checking the tables to determine just how the CSS was calculated.

Pre-WHS, I would very occasionally be asked how CSS was calculated. I would give the player a copy of the following - this always satisfied the player and no-one ever asked how the CSS tables were derived:


For Par 72, SSS 72

The approximate proportions of players playing to handicap and resultant CSS are:
40% and over = CSS 71 (37 points)
20 to 39% = CSS 72 (36 points)
14 to 19% = CSS 73 (35 points)
10 to 13% = CSS 74 (34 points)
6 to 9% = CSS 75 (33 points)
Less than 6% =CSS 75 (33 points) (Reductions Only)

 

[sweaty sock]

I have never seen or heard of anyone checking the tables to determine just how the CSS was calculated.

I have, you asked the EGU for a book and it came a couple days later, explained exactly how it worked, gave you a good understanding of how css was likely to move during comps depending on field make up, in the old days it was useful to manage your handicap if the system wasnt updated between comps....

 

[Swango1980]

Pre WHS, I suspect the average golfer was probably a bit more interested in CSS because their score would have a direct impact on their handicap, and was not dependent on 19 other scores (well, 20 other scores as you need to know what is happening to the one you are about to lose). So, if they shot a specific score, you'd know exactly what would happen to their handicap, but with the caveat about CSS. CSS was then often known quite soon after, once competition was closed. The detail of how it was calculated wasn't so important, just that it was going to be higher if the competition scores were generally poorer than would be expected. And, for me anyway, the expectation was normally similar to what actually happened and so most were happy with the explanation.

With WHS, Score Differentials and the fact that appalling scores can be submitted and not change a players index, while very good scores can be submitted and index go up, I think a lot of the average golfers have simply lost interest in what their score will do to their handicap. And, if they've lost interest in that, then they certainly aren't going to worry about PCC. It'd be interesting to know how many average golfers scan their last 20 scores on MyEG to understand what their next round may do. I'd say quite a few probably don't bother. Whereas before, you only needed to know your starting handicap and then you could figure out what might happen to your hcp after your next score.

 

[IanM]

I’ll be logging into the EG Webinar - I am not holding my breath but I do expect some discussion on the impending changes.

Me too, if I am home in time! I suspect 25 mins on how exciting this and and how it will grow the game and then 5 mins saying what is changing

 

[Alan Clifford]

It'd be interesting to know how many average golfers scan their last 20 scores on MyEG to understand what their next round may do.

I have a spreadsheet that does that.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I have a spreadsheet that does that.

Me too, but I don't think either of us s fit into the "average golfer" category to which Swango refers.

 

[Swango1980]

I have a spreadsheet that does that.

Is MyEG not good enough for you (or whatever App is relevant to your location)

To be fair, I've a friend who has a spreadsheet that contains every one of his scores for years and years, so that he can pull up all sorts of historical stats from his history. Although this isn't the behaviour of the average golfer. In fact, he contributes to this forum fairly regularly

 

[rulefan]

Is MyEG not good enough for you (or whatever App is relevant to your location)

Doesn't the WHS do that just as well?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Doesn't the WHS do that just as well?

Ah, but you can't trust them.
Gotta check they've done it right every time.