Changes I'd like to see.

Alan Clifford

Active member
Aug 13, 2020
51.24547594210736, -0.522185958858282
1. Get rid of gender based tees. Yes, they still exist. If I play of the reds with my wife, she uses a different slope and course rating.

2. Get rid of the complicated 9 hole calculations that differ in different juridictions. Just use the "add two 9 holes together" method.

3. Use the course rating in the course handicap calculation in England. Or sorry, we already do. But only for 9 holes not for 18. Oh, I forgot, if it's a mixed tee competition, we have to do a further calculation. Only for 18 hole competions of course.

4. Tone down the corporate influences. "Handicap index" is a trade mark. This is supposed to be a pastime. And let's look at the PCC. If it were in the scientific sphere, the algorithms and all the data would be peer reviewed. But not in golf; it's a corporate secret. And it apparently doesn't work. What a surprise.


Journeyman Pro
May 18, 2009
Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
Understand where you are coming from Alan!

1. Checking my understanding about "gender based tees." In my head, we have got rid of them, even if they have different ratings!! In practice, if a tee is rated for men and women. we just look at the table, then off we go. In the old days, men wouldn't play of the "red" tees...or the front ones, never mind the paint job! Women off the whites? Hardly happened! Seems to work ok when I play with my wife! She's happy if there are extra shots to be had! I havent noticed any major disadvantages.

2. Get rid of 9 holes couniting for handicap full stop in my head! :ROFLMAO: Speaking to our h'cap sec, he says if he wants to look for "oddities," he looks who is putting in 9 hole gen play cards! ;)

3. Not sure if I've had any issues re this! (or maybe I don't understand it! :) )

4. Every club golfer I know at some point since it's introduction has raised an eyebrow about PCC being zero. Must have been countless posts on here saying same. I think folk had a perception that they could predict CSS going up, and they think they should have something similar with PCC. (theory on my part, based on my observation!) The mystique about the calculation is unhelpful and is golf's version of Little Britain's "Computer says no!"

How do you know?
Is your usual comment and you are better read than I on the subject, although the need for a review of it last year would confirm that someone in power wasn't happy with it. (or the flack they were taking about it)