Are you saying you are basically at a pitch and putt course?
That's another impressive %. I wonder what those numbers were like back in April?
Percentage of Single Digit Handicap Players.
- Thread starter craigstardis1976
- Start date
That's another impressive %. I wonder what those numbers were like back in April?
Yorkhacker
Well-known member
That is quite an elite club. Is it a very difficult course?
Your club champion definitely earns the trophy
Slope is 142 and rating is 73.6 off the whites - It's Fulford.
Relatively few play in the club championships. It's a tough day of 36 holes and 4.5 - 5 hour rounds are usual.
I caddied for a friend this year and it was scorching.
Yorkhacker
Well-known member
Well deduced. I can't see myself ever leaving Fulford. Its glory days are behind it, but it's still really enjoyable to play, and I've got a great group of friends thereYes pretty impressively talented playing membership! @Yorkhacker Given the username I’m guessing Fulford, unless you’ve moved away?
(Potentially to Whitby given the photo
Neilds
Assistant Pro
I take it there is an interview before joining and they weed out the hackers?
Yorkhacker
Well-known member
They let me in, so no! I hadn't been a member anywhere before I joined and there was no interview. Think I got lucky as there's a long waiting list now.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Tomorrow is a seniors comp and I'm compelled to play from the yellows.
I have a 4.5 dropping off which was 6 over par from the whites.
To match it, I will have to be 4 over from the yellows to be 4.4
I know that I do not play two shots lower from the yellows on average. About 0.75 to 1.0 better would be more realistic.
But although the ratings do not match me and the way I play, they might match others.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Same - I’m 7 off silver (white) and 5 off purple (yellow). I’m not anywhere near consistently 2 shots better off purples, it’s not the difference in length that gets me…my problem is that though I am pretty steady I can chuck a double in from anywhere…quite independent of the tee I’m playing from. Off 7 I have a little wiggle room to accommodate one - off 5…nah…
Springveldt
Well-known member
Yeah I wonder what it was earlier this year as well.Are you saying you are basically at a pitch and putt course?
That's another impressive %. I wonder what those numbers were like back in April?
Feels like pitch and putt at times, even although it’s over 6500 yards and I’ll come off some days without hitting anything more than a 7 iron approach if the wind isn’t blowing.
Maybe I’m downplaying my recent golf and I’ve actually improved. My mate was up at your place the other weekend and shot 69 off the whites and said it probably should have been about 66 if he took more of his chances.
If your mate hits a big ball, and most of your mates seem to
, then that removes the biggest defence of the course. The greens aren't tricksy, neither are the approaches. There isn't thick rough and the fairways are wide. Basically, if you hit it very long and straight then you'll have chances on flat, albeit sizeable, greens. It sounds simple, isn't always simple to carry it out. Fair play to him. Good players will certainly score well there.
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
In that scenario would it also be one handicap regardless of tee's used? In my experiences it'd be lunacy to let ppl play a handicap counting round on the course from longer/shorter tees with no change to number of handicap strokes
Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
That’s pretty much exactly what the CONGU system was one handicap regardless of course and tees played.
Then so many times peoples scores would balloon because some holes suddenly had upto 40yds added from competition tees or they’d go to a harder course and be several shots worse than their handicap at their home clubs.
For me the WHS system with slope and stroke allowance based on the courses allowing people extra shots or taking them away where needed means handicaps travel so much better and are more accurate account of a players actual ability than the old system.
irip
Head Pro
I’m not sure that there is a perfect system I was just interested in people’s preferences.
Maybe your handicap should change just on course length?
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Yeah I was just musing that if we reverted to one h/cap then it wouldn’t just be applied to other courses but also the variants of home course, and after using whs for a few years I wouldn’t welcome a return to the dark days of being unable to recognise when you go away and play a tough/easy course or take oppertunity of playing tips/forward tees at home
I know lots say ‘well I don’t play in Asia/US etc so don’t need a world system’ but forget that was the same situation when you played the course next door but one from home & we had lots of threads on here discussing how does your h/cap travel?
wjemather
Well-known member
How could a dataset that only contains yardage and ignores all other factors possibly be used as evidence that those factors are insufficiently accounted for, or persuade anyone of that?
wjemather
Well-known member
Looks very much to me like the club changed it's mind about how long they cut the general rough and/or how fast the greens are in order to boost their ratings.
If that was a dishonest representation, all they have succeeded in doing is ensuring their members handicaps will be slightly lower than they should be.
Fwiw, it's clubs being dishonest about their day-to-day setup to get vanity ratings that is the problem, not the system - and it happens far too often.
Last edited:
abjectplop
Hacker
That's correct, but whilst you were off the same handicap everytime, you were playing to the SSS (or CSS) in comps which was different for every tee to account for the difficulty. So you could be off a handicap of 10 on a Par 72 course but SSS would be 70 for yellow tees, and 72 on whites.
Ultimately, it's no different under WHS for handicap purposes, it's just a different way of allocating you the extra strokes.
CountLippe
Active member
Slight difference in that an SSS of 71.5 and 72.4 would both be rounded to 72 under the old system. Under the new system its not rounded so virtually a shot.
abjectplop
Hacker
Good point, never considered that!
cliveb
Head Pro
If you want to determine if there's a correlation between two things, you absolutely have to eliminate other potential factors. That's precisely what these graphs do.
If you incorporate other factors into the comparison, you cannot demonstrate a correlation.
The data clearly shows that length is the overwhelming factor in calculating CR.
The only remaining area of debate is for you to persuade some of us that taking such minimal account of other factors is appropriate, or for us to persuade you that it isn't.
And I see little prospect of either side changing its mind. But that's OK, there are others in this thread who might be on the fence and interested in the data being presented.
wjemather
Well-known member
Length is obviously and undeniably the overwhelming factor that affects scoring. It really doesn't need any amateur analysis to confirm that.
Fwiw, perception of the difficulty presented by various course conditions and obstacles is very often exaggerated when compared to their measurable effect on scoring difficulty.
However, you are trying to claim & evidence that other factors are not sufficiently accounted for without actually accounting for those factors at all in your data & analysis. As such, you have offered no evidence at all that these factors (either individually or collectively) affect scoring more (or less) than is accounted for by the rating system. Can you really not see this?
