WHS doesn't work

[Golfist]

Yes there is an element of truth in what you say.
a bit like firms treating new customers better than existing ones.( That’s been stopped I think)

The low men who work on their games seem to be forgotten or because they had a perceived advantage in the past this system is designed to address that.
But imho I think it’s gone to far the other way.
some of the silly scores we have had just didn’t happen before WHS.
Thats just a fact at my club , but some clubs havnt had this problem I can’t say why!

I think it may be down to SR. Either SR is too high for the course or WHS grants players too many shots on high SR courses.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Not being awkward, just reading and forming an opinion based on interpreting the procedure differently to you. As I posted earlier, I don't believe anything in either reference you quoted specificlly excludes the combo. Both simply state how the two can be played, in a full field in comp, together. That said, I'm out.

Exactly, in a comp, you can also play matchplay if your club allows.

In a MATCH (which was the question), you CANNOT submit a GP card. Surely you understand the difference?

The authorised form of play is strokeplay, s/ford or Bogey comps, NOT matchplay, not any sort of team event.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Surely if the competition format is 4BB, then they cannot put in a GP scorecard. The only acceptable format under CONGU is individual strokeplay irrespective of whether players hole out or not.

From Jim's post, they are playing individual, but with a side matchplay that's pairs. That's allowed. If the format was actually 4BBB then you can;t put in a GP card.

 

[Alan Clifford]

What's your problem with that? And it's not a simple average either; that would almost always give a higher HI.

I always thought the previous system was harsh, maybe too harsh. At my level, any score under handicap put my handicap down by 0.4 per shot under. A bad round, no change. A really bad round, 0.1 increase. But as a system, it had the right concept. With an averaging system that uses a subset of your scores, the effects of rounds move out of the system too quickly such that good scores drop out of your record completely. In an instant. It's too simplistic and does not allow for a gradual decay of past scores.

 

[Tower]

I always thought the previous system was harsh, maybe too harsh. At my level, any score under handicap put my handicap down by 0.4 per shot under. A bad round, no change. A really bad round, 0.1 increase. But as a system, it had the right concept. With an averaging system that uses a subset of your scores, the effects of rounds move out of the system too quickly such that good scores drop out of your record completely. In an instant. It's too simplistic and does not allow for a gradual decay of past scores.

There's so much in the above that is either simply wrong, irrelevant, or that I disagree with. And you have left out the area of the system that I consider the major benefit - the Slope aspect wallops the SSS/CSS one of the previous method.

 

[CountLippe]

It's funny that the only manipulation I've seen was by acquaintances trying to stop their HI going up...
Register a GP round on MyEG, play badly and cancel the round part way through citing, "Lightning strike" or "Badger attack" as the reason.

I don't know if they've changed it, but you used to be able to input your scores straight away on the England Golf app. So basically, have a good knock, register and put in the round. Bad knock, don't bother.

 

[Backache]

There's so much in the above that is either simply wrong, irrelevant, or that I disagree with. And you have left out the area of the system that I consider the major benefit - the Slope aspect wallops the SSS/CSS one of the previous method.

I agree that the slope aspect is excellent.
My own personal gripe is that most of the time there is a complaint we are told it is the handicap commitees fault not the system. It strikes me that a system that puts the blame onto others the whole time is not a very good system.

 

[Alan Clifford]

There's so much in the above that is either simply wrong, irrelevant, or that I disagree with. And you have left out the area of the system that I consider the major benefit - the Slope aspect wallops the SSS/CSS one of the previous method.

"simply wrong, irrelevant". Easy to say the meaningless words. And shouldn't you be comparing SSS to course rating rather than slope rating?

 

[rulefan]

I agree that the slope aspect is excellent.
My own personal gripe is that most of the time there is a complaint we are told it is the handicap commitees fault not the system. It strikes me that a system that puts the blame onto others the whole time is not a very good system.

I suspect most car accidents are because of drivers not design or manufacturing faults

 

[Backache]

I suspect most car accidents are because of drivers not design or manufacturing faults

That is indeed true but they have been engineered so that they are generally safe despite human failings.

 

[Tower]

"simply wrong, irrelevant". Easy to say the meaningless words. And shouldn't you be comparing SSS to course rating rather than slope rating?

No. By 'Slope' (note the capital S), I meant the entire system. I guess I could have stated 'the slope system' for fools/nitpickers but didn't think I needed to.

 

[Voyager EMH]

No. By 'Slope' (note the capital S), I meant the entire system. I guess I could have stated 'the slope system' for fools/nitpickers but didn't think I needed to.

You needed to.
Because this fool/nitpicker thought you meant slope rating when you stated "the Slope aspect".
I'm not disagreeing with what you are intending to say, merely stating what I thought you were saying.

 

[Swango1980]

I suspect most car accidents are because of drivers not design or manufacturing faults

How many safety features are designed within cars to reduce the chance of accidents caused by poor driving?

 

[rulefan]

How many safety features are designed within cars to reduce the chance of accidents caused by poor driving?

Well it would seem the accelerator, brake and the steering wheel aren't. Most, if not all safety features are there to mitigate the effects of poor driving.

 

[Swango1980]

Well it would seem the accelerator, brake and the steering wheel aren't. Most, if not all safety features are there to mitigate the effects of poor driving.

Absolutely, which made your initial analogy a poor one

 

[Deleted member 30522]

There's so much in the above that is either simply wrong, irrelevant, or that I disagree with. And you have left out the area of the system that I consider the major benefit - the Slope aspect wallops the SSS/CSS one of the previous method.

SSS/CSS is now PCC, which is universally decried as useless.

Slope is an abomination, your course SSS took care of handicap vagaries course to course, now you have this ridiculous moving handicap nonsense, to have a different handicap wherever you play is nonsense, folks are baffled by it, and it makes no sense.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

No. By 'Slope' (note the capital S), I meant the entire system. I guess I could have stated 'the slope system' for fools/nitpickers but didn't think I needed to.

Your clarification doesn't help, the "whole system" is WHS, SSS is nothing to do with slope, SSS is replaced by course rating.

 

[Alan Clifford]

No. By 'Slope' (note the capital S), I meant the entire system. I guess I could have stated 'the slope system' for fools/nitpickers but didn't think I needed to.

You didn't address ""simply wrong, irrelevant". Easy to say the meaningless words."

 

[wjemather]

SSS/CSS is now PCC, which is universally decried as useless.

Slope is an abomination, your course SSS took care of handicap vagaries course to course, now you have this ridiculous moving handicap nonsense, to have a different handicap wherever you play is nonsense, folks are baffled by it, and it makes no sense.

There is barely a word of this that isn't wrong. I shouldn't be surprised, but your ignorance regarding the function of Slope is truly shocking.

Aside from providing an adjustment based on scoring, PCC is completely different to CSS and it's unhelpful to conflate the two. Doing so results in thinking that PCC does not work, or does not move far enough often enough. And it is certainly not universally decried as useless.

Slope accounts for the fact that the difficulty of courses can vary substantially for scratch and bogey golfers. SSS (like CR) only reflected the difficulty for a standard scratch golfer - it's why some clubs' handicaps 'travelled well' and others didn't. The vast majority of golfers globally, including across GB&I, cope with Slope just fine - indeed, most of the rest of the world have done so for years.

 

[wjemather]

Your clarification doesn't help, the "whole system" is WHS, SSS is nothing to do with slope, SSS is replaced by course rating.

For clarity, WHS depends on the Course and Slope Rating System, but no rating systems are part of WHS - they exist entirely separately.