Now you are just repeating yourself and saying the same thing again.
Scratch golf is course independent
- Thread starter Backsticks
- Start date
bobmac
Major Champion
rulefan
Tour Winner
Notably the slope is lower on courses 3 & 4 and so is the handicap. Further your h/c range suggests cat 1 rather than scratch, so slope seems to have an effect.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
Yes exactly what?
You literally rubbished your own "vanity handicap" argument, even when pointed out to you you don't see it?
There is no contradiction in lower handicaps and reduced stickiness. It is entirely consistent.
D-S
Well-known member
It is in the equation - it is part of the adjusted gross score calculation (an equation) which gives the gross scores from which the HI is derived.
D
Deleted member 1147
Guest
Did you used to post on here under the name Foxholer?
He used to post a load of self important, condescending, incorrect stuff as well!
WGCRider
Newbie
I think it does. Slope impacts your CH which impact the differential and hence your handicap.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
Oh deary me, you said that UHS facilitated vanity handicaps, yet even you admit that handicaps are lower under WHS, so how exactly was UHS promoting vanity handicaps, it was actually the opposite
rulefan
Tour Winner
What is the purpose of Slope then?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 23270
Guest
Can you explain this to me please?
Facilitating, not promoting.
For DaveR also.
a)
- For a given unchanging level of golf of sufficient sample size of rounds, there is a level of golf, that under UHS, would have settled on a handicap of 2.
- For that exact same level of golf and a not trivial number of rounds (ie. 20+), under WHS that golfer will now (in the main...of course there are exceptions, and my-mate anecdotes. But speaking globally) have a HI of scratch. The system is different. It was known this would happen. The bonus for excellence (ie that in handicapped competition low golfers had a shot or 2 more than higher hcs) was removed.
b)
In the case of golf level disimprovement, UCS, with 0.1 upward adjustments regardless of how bad the round is, and, a limit of 0.7 - in the main - per calander year, a golfer who was off scratch genuinely, but is now playing 4hc level golf, would only see his handicap increase very slowly. It was inherently sticky to a given lowest hc. WHS will respond faster to this disimprovement. The disimproved scratch golfers handicap will rise much faster under WHS than UCS, reflecting his current level. Not a bias towards his lowest hc.
I am not sure I can write it more clearly.
D-S
Well-known member
”In the case of golf level disimprovement, UCS, with 0.1 upward adjustments regardless of how bad the round is, and, a limit of 0.7 - in the main - per calander year, a golfer who was off scratch genuinely, but is now playing 4hc level golf, would only see his handicap increase very slowly.”
Why a limit of 0.7?
Actually under UHS, the declining golfer who posted 7 consecutive rounds not in the buffer zone (thereby already increasing their handicap by 0.1), provided they met the criteria of a declining golfer, were raised an extra shot, speeding their upward trajectory.
Why a limit of 0.7?
Actually under UHS, the declining golfer who posted 7 consecutive rounds not in the buffer zone (thereby already increasing their handicap by 0.1), provided they met the criteria of a declining golfer, were raised an extra shot, speeding their upward trajectory.
I dont know. Maybe it was 1.0. But thought the old 1.0 was reduced to 0.7 in the latter years of UHS.
Either way the rise was not in proportion to the magnitude of score deterioration. In contrast to WHS.
D-S
Well-known member
As far as I am aware there was no limit to upward movement per calendar year and as per my post there was an upwards accelerator for consecutive poor scores - very much the reverse of any limit.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
There was no limit. And someone going up a shot or more during a year for sure would get flagged for review
Possibly not everywhere, though the provision was there, maybe only Ireland applied it.
"Increases in Exact Handicaps should not be subject to restriction unless a Union so directs. A Union may restrict the increase of Exact Handicaps to a maximum of 1.0 stroke in a calendar year except for increases granted under Clause 23."
But without digging back into the minutiae of the UHS, the principle is valid. Increases of 0.1 prompted slower increases than WHS.
There is a nuancical difference between the two words though.
UHC certainly didnt promote, as in advocate, vanity handicaps. But it was easier for those so motivated to do so I think, thus facilitating that tendency more than WHS. I think you know what I meant.
