PCC calculation to be changed.....

[Esteban_M]

Is there an English language version of the WHS manual available in Spain and/or Argentina?
Can you provide an English translation of the Rule which indicates that an individual's competition score need not be returned.
What does Rule 7.1b(i) say?

Argentina Golf Association (AAG, in Spanish) is ruled following the same rules from the R&A. There is no particular local adaptation that I'm aware of, so it's safe to assume we use the same Rule 7.1b

 

[Esteban_M]

We twigged very early that the World Handicap System wasn’t a WHS.

And fortunately so, I always doubted that some promoters of it had more commercial interest in pushing their "solutions" than to level the game for players participating in different federations.

As in local rules, it benefited us, since our "old" system didn't have slope, so you played the same handicap in different courses, regardless of the difficulty.

And albeit the implementation was lousy, most of the game is played by the rules, so the handicap of players is fairly accurate. I have golf friends from other countries, and the situation is different, most players play with friends and make up their own rules, so these cards are not valid for submission.

 

[IanMcC]

I really resent all the posts on this thread saying that pre registered rounds can be ignored if the player sees fit. I always issue a penalty score for unsatisfied score intents registered manually with me, and Wales Golf issues a penalty score after 4 days for intents registered electronically. How are people bypassing this system?

 

[RRidges]

And fortunately so, I always doubted that some promoters of it had more commercial interest in pushing their "solutions" than to level the game for players participating in different federations.

As in local rules, it benefited us, since our "old" system didn't have slope, so you played the same handicap in different courses, regardless of the difficulty.

And albeit the implementation was lousy, most of the game is played by the rules, so the handicap of players is fairly accurate. I have golf friends from other countries, and the situation is different, most players play with friends and make up their own rules, so these cards are not valid for submission.

The Slope element is far and away the best part of WHS. Individual tweaks by each country are fairly trivial, save for the daft one here, now, and back in Aus, historical, wrt CR - Par., which is a fairly pintless fudge for Stableford rounds

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The Slope element is far and away the best part of WHS. Individual tweaks by each country are fairly trivial, save for the daft one here, now, and back in Aus, historical, wrt CR - Par., which is a fairly pintless fudge for Stableford rounds

If you mean different handicaps for different courses, seems to be one of the biggest complaints. The SSS took care of that, harder courses had a higher SSS/CSS so players there took more strokes to play to same handicap as someone at a lower SSS course. Changing your handicap depending where you're playing is nonsense.

 

[IanM]

Changing your handicap depending where you're playing is nonsense.

Rarely disagree with you, but I think having a different allowance on different courses makes sense.

Although it needs to "feel logical" or it loses credibility. (I know "perception" isn't acceptable to the slide rule crew!)

Although, I can see the point you make, but at least the bloke who makes the handicap boards is enjoying his new Ferrari ?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Rarely disagree with you, but I think having a different allowance on different courses makes sense.

Although it needs to "feel logical" or it loses credibility. (I know "perception" isn't acceptable to the slide rule crew!)

Although, I can see the point you make.

To go on further, and see if we can agree

Many of the SSS ratings didn't make sense, round here you'll find much agreement on which courses were rated too hard, or too soft, thereby giving either too weak or too strong handicaps as a result (at least that's the perception). But if the SSS's had been assessed more accurately, would there be a need for this sliding scale of moving handicap?

To go further, at my home club, par 72, SSS 70, off 6 I was effectively 4 as folks always think of par as the number. At Newmacher as an eg, par 72, SSS 74, now I'm off an effective 8. To play to my handicap, the target was already moved, now instead of the target moving, I get more or less shots to start with. It intuitively feels wrong.

 

[YandaB]

To go on further, and see if we can agree

Many of the SSS ratings didn't make sense, round here you'll find much agreement on which courses were rated too hard, or too soft, thereby giving either too weak or too strong handicaps as a result (at least that's the perception). But if the SSS's had been assessed more accurately, would there be a need for this sliding scale of moving handicap?

To go further, at my home club, par 72, SSS 70, off 6 I was effectively 4 as folks always think of par as the number. At Newmacher as an eg, par 72, SSS 74, now I'm off an effective 8. To play to my handicap, the target was already moved, now instead of the target moving, I get more or less shots to start with. It intuitively feels wrong.

Are you sure that you are not mixing up SR and CR?

 

[rulefan]

To go on further, and see if we can agree

Many of the SSS ratings didn't make sense, round here you'll find much agreement on which courses were rated too hard, or too soft, thereby giving either too weak or too strong handicaps as a result (at least that's the perception). But if the SSS's had been assessed more accurately, would there be a need for this sliding scale of moving handicap?
.

The SSS rating procedure was not that different to CR. The differences between them have rarely been more than 1 stroke. Anything more substantial has generally been down to significant or sometimes subtle changes to the course, with fairly old SSS ratings being a major factor. Incidentally SSS was calculated to a decimal but published as a rounded value.
But of course Slope has been the biggest game changer. Given that most players have handicaps of 16+ they will all be getting an effective (variable) increase wherever they play. In effect the SSS for most players has increased.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Are you sure that you are not mixing up SR and CR?

No. See further comments from @rulefan

 

[YandaB]

No. See further comments from @rulefan

But your course handicap will only change if the SR is not 113. What you have to do to "play to your handicap" changes in relation to CR as it always did for SSS/CSS. What am I missing?

 

[RRidges]

If you mean different handicaps for different courses, seems to be one of the biggest complaints. The SSS took care of that, harder courses had a higher SSS/CSS so players there took more strokes to play to same handicap as someone at a lower SSS course.

No! That would be the CR element!

Changing your handicap depending where you're playing is nonsense.

I totally disagree - and so would every National Golf authority in the world!

 

[rulefan]

But your course handicap will only change if the SR is not 113. What you have to do to "play to your handicap" changes in relation to CR as it always did for SSS/CSS. What am I missing?

Apart from a SR of 113, the really significant introduction of Slope to the UK.

 

[rulefan]

Changing your handicap depending where you're playing is nonsense.

Handicaps are designed to allow a player to (attempt) to play to scratch on any course, not just one course.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

But your course handicap will only change if the SR is not 113. What you have to do to "play to your handicap" changes in relation to CR as it always did for SSS/CSS. What am I missing?

You're missing that your handicap was in effect different before at every club too, in relation to par, because SSS related to the difficulty of the course. So peoples handicaps at different clubs were in theory equal.

The fact that those ratings were widely agreed to be wrong is the issue that needed sorting, instead it's about the only element of handicap system that hasn't been changed.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Handicaps are designed to allow a player to (attempt) to play to scratch on any course, not just one course.

Yes, as they were before with SSS

 

[Swango1980]

If you mean different handicaps for different courses, seems to be one of the biggest complaints. The SSS took care of that, harder courses had a higher SSS/CSS so players there took more strokes to play to same handicap as someone at a lower SSS course. Changing your handicap depending where you're playing is nonsense.

SSS was equivalent to CR, so we still effectively have that. Slope is something else entirely.

Under the old system, the absolute difference between the handicaps of 2 players would remain the same, regardless of the course. That is no longer the case, due to Slope. It means that, if you go to a very open golf course, and less obstacles to catch out the worse player who is likely to be affected by them most, that higher handicapper will not get as many shots when up against the low handicapper. Conversely, go to a very tight course, where the higher handicapper is probably going to find it relatively much more difficult than the lower guy, the higher handicapper will get more shots to play with in comparison. Much shorter courses, less yardage for both players to cover, and the relative difference between them will also generally go down as a result. Very long course, more yardage for them both to cover and therefore the relative difference between them increases.

There's a lot I've been critical off since it was implemented, but I personally thing that addition of Slope is the primary benefit of the system itself.

 

[rulefan]

Yes, as they were before with SSS

If A (scratch) and B (26) played any course prior to 2018, SSS said that A should play to the SSS but unless the (as yet unknown) slope was 113, B would not. His score would depend on how difficult the course was in absolute terms.
Slope now gives B the opportunity to see how well he plays any course relative to his WHS handicap as opposed to his UHS handicap.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

If A (scratch) and B (26) played any course prior to 2018, SSS said that A should play to the SSS but unless the (as yet unknown) slope was 113, B would not. His score would depend on how difficult the course was in absolute terms.
Slope now gives B the opportunity to see how well he plays any course relative to his WHS handicap as opposed to his UHS handicap.

In theory, except the slop rating is even more controversial than SSS/CR.

For eg, the two courses I'm a member at are rated 118 & 126, the 118 is far harder than the 126 particularly for higher handicappers as our thick rough is 90% of the time a lost ball, my 126 course has almost no areas of thick rough at all.

 

[RRidges]

If you mean different handicaps for different courses, seems to be one of the biggest complaints. The SSS took care of that, harder courses had a higher SSS/CSS so players there took more strokes to play to same handicap as someone at a lower SSS course. Changing your handicap depending where you're playing is nonsense.

Yet you seem to be arguing against exactly that with your example of you home course versus Newmacher! Can you name any course where SSS and CR differed by more than 1 stroke?
The 'Slope' allowance is an addition due to the actual difference in difficulty for a 'Bogie' player is a statistically proven element that is new, for UK, but has been played in most other countries for a number of years.