WHS doesn't work

[Deleted member 30522]

Does that mean that you don't play general play rounds or that you don't submit those scores for handicap? If the latter, the solution to your complaint that your 20th score is old and irrelevant is, perhaps, staring you in the face.

Another point to note, and you could perhaps lobby England Golf about it as it would be another way to solve your problem, is that matchplay rounds are eligible for handicap purposes in other WHS jurisdictions.


To be honest, the problems of "WHS not working" stem from England Golf's half hearted and incomplete implementation.

That would be dreadful

 

[wjemather]

Why of course, but that doesnt stop the comp for men stipulating that its to be played from the pink unicorn tees and the comp for women to be played from the Black Death tees...

The correct answer as described above was for the club to request a seperate pcc for each comp. Problem solved.

That isn't exactly what I described. There is provision in the rules of handicapping for multiple PCC calculations on any given day; reasons for this include extreme change in weather or significantly different make-up of players. The situation described by the op could meet the requirements, but the club should not be deliberately setting extreme conditions by pushing a set of tees to the limit - if they want to do that the extreme length should be rated separately.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I appreciate it could have been all GP cards - absolutely - but it would be more down to our rough than conditions out of the clubs control (weather) atm and PCC seems to reflect that too? Can a club turn off the PCC function if its new approach is to have this long rough permanently or would a course need re-rating?

I'm not trying to create arguments, I'm asking for suggestions that I could put to our committee to help? Sunday was glorious golfing weather

No to the first question, and yes your club should request a re-rating if they've made significant changes

 

[Bdill93]

No to the first question, and yes your club should request a re-rating if they've made significant changes

Just not sure if the changes are permanent at this stage. The Rough is absolutely insane

 

[D-S]

Just not sure if the changes are permanent at this stage. The Rough is absolutely insane

Perhaps the greenstaff are just following government advice and adopting ‘No Mow May’.
Should be ok next month.

 

[jim8flog]

Just not sure if the changes are permanent at this stage. The Rough is absolutely insane

I have played at this club for many years and the green staff have never been able to keep on top of of the mowing needed at this time of year any year.

 

[clubchamp98]

I have played at this club for many years and the green staff have never been able to keep on top of of the mowing needed at this time of year any year.

Yes Rain,Heat = mad growth.

 

[jim8flog]

Yes Rain,Heat = mad growth.

plus at our club this year a generous helping of grass fertiliser.

 

[clubchamp98]

plus at our club this year a generous helping of grass fertiliser.

That’s not cheap anymore.

 

[Tractor Wheal]

The club could request separate PCC calculations - and hopefully they'll receive a reminder that they should not be setting the course up this way.

Maybe my first question was too vague but I'm genuinely interested in how multiple PCCs work. Is it :
a) It needs to be requested in advance of an event or
b) It needs to be requested once clear a PCC is not reflective of scores or
c) It's in the rules but there is not a mechanism to make it work or
d) Something else.

If a) then nobody knows how PCC works so a pre-emptive request is unlikely to happen. If b) then handicaps may change without people playing. If c) then it's a pointless rule.

In any event I fail to see how this works and is surely the best example of the thread title unless d) exists. I would really like to know how multiple PCCs work.

Thanks

 

[wjemather]

Maybe my first question was too vague but I'm genuinely interested in how multiple PCCs work. Is it :
a) It needs to be requested in advance of an event or
b) It needs to be requested once clear a PCC is not reflective of scores or
c) It's in the rules but there is not a mechanism to make it work or
d) Something else.

If a) then nobody knows how PCC works so a pre-emptive request is unlikely to happen. If b) then handicaps may change without people playing. If c) then it's a pointless rule.

In any event I fail to see how this works and is surely the best example of the thread title unless d) exists. I would really like to know how multiple PCCs work.

Thanks

The relevant handicapping authority would need to advise regarding their process - if England Golf have published anything, I have missed it.

How it works should be relatively simple - the scores are separated and a PCC calculated for each set of scores. Whether the back end software currently facilitates it is another issue.

I wouldn't have thought it possible to foresee when an extreme difference will occur - as I've said, courses should never be setup extremely differently from how they are rated, so this should never be a cause.

 

[Swango1980]

The relevant handicapping authority would need to advise regarding their process - if England Golf have published anything, I have missed it.

How it works should be relatively simple - the scores are separated and a PCC calculated for each set of scores. Whether the back end software currently facilitates it is another issue.

I wouldn't have thought it possible to foresee when an extreme difference will occur - as I've said, courses should never be setup extremely differently from how they are rated, so this should never be a cause.

To summarise, it should be relatively simple in theory, but impossible in practice as there is no procedure, nor supported by the handicapping software?

 

[jim8flog]

That’s not cheap anymore.

Having played at the club for over 30 years it is the first time I have seen a granular fertiliser being used on the fairways. Playing on the fairways at the moment is like playing out of first cut rough.

 

[wjemather]

To summarise, it should be relatively simple in theory, but impossible in practice as there is no procedure, nor supported by the handicapping software?

No. Certainly not impossible, otherwise there wouldn't be provision in the rules; local procedure and software support are simply unknown.

 

[Tractor Wheal]

The relevant handicapping authority would need to advise regarding their process - if England Golf have published anything, I have missed it.

How it works should be relatively simple - the scores are separated and a PCC calculated for each set of scores. Whether the back end software currently facilitates it is another issue.

I wouldn't have thought it possible to foresee when an extreme difference will occur - as I've said, courses should never be setup extremely differently from how they are rated, so this should never be a cause.

Thank you. I agree with all of what you say.

So the solution to make PCC work (better) might include:
Publish the formula so to create transparency.

Separate calculations for:
Genders
Tees
Competition v Casuals
Members v Visitors

If they don't hit the criteria for the group (e.g. 8 players, HI 36 or better, Fully Developed scoring record) then it's a zero.

However desirable, I genuinely fail to see how the data can be separated for am/pm scores given the vagaries of the signing-in and score submission processes.

 

[Swango1980]

No. Certainly not impossible, otherwise there wouldn't be provision in the rules; local procedure and software support are simply unknown.

If local procedure and software support is unknown, then that sounds like having different PCCs is currently impossible. How could it be possible, if nobody knows how to do it?

I suspect the only answer would be to contact England Golf. And I suspect their response would be there is an allowance in the rules, but will only be supported of it is something experience highlights as being necessary. Therefore, cannot yet be implemented.

 

[wjemather]

Thank you. I agree with all of what you say.

So the solution to make PCC work (better) might include:
Publish the formula so to create transparency.

Separate calculations for:
Genders
Tees
Competition v Casuals
Members v Visitors

If they don't hit the criteria for the group (e.g. 8 players, HI 36 or better, Fully Developed scoring record) then it's a zero.

However desirable, I genuinely fail to see how the data can be separated for am/pm scores given the vagaries of the signing-in and score submission processes.

Generally I would probably say no, because:

Genders - each is playing with respect to their ratings and PCC accounts for this.
Tees - tees should be within tolerance with respect to their ratings.
Comp vs. GP - scoring patterns should not be significantly different.
Members vs. visitors - this has more merit, but it's probably only visitors to completely unfamiliar courses who will show significantly different scoring patterns.

 

[rulefan]

So the solution to make PCC work (better) might include:
Publish the formula so to create transparency.

I can't see how publishing the formula would make it work better or differently.

The CSS process was what it was even though it was in the book but was arguably limited in that it only applied to a specific competition but non-competitors had the same playing conditions on that day.

 

[D-S]

I can't see how publishing the formula would make it work better or differently.

The CSS process was what it was even though it was in the book but was arguably limited in that it only applied to a specific competition but non-competitors had the same playing conditions on that day.

One plus of the CSS was that it differentiated between home players and visitors, this could perhaps be incorporated in PCC.

 

[clubchamp98]

I can't see how publishing the formula would make it work better or differently.

The CSS process was what it was even though it was in the book but was arguably limited in that it only applied to a specific competition but non-competitors had the same playing conditions on that day.

That’s true but everyone knows the game is different with that card in your hand!
so the PCC should only affect those playing in the comp and should not be affected by someone just playing with their mates ,!
imo of course.