WHS doesn't work

[rulefan]

SSS is comparable to Course Rating.

In fact in the 'leadup' to WHS all Course Ratings in England (for men) were done using the USGA rating system as opposed to the EGU SSS system. The resultant CR was simply rounded and called the SSS. The Bogey Rating (and Slope) were simply stored 'til WHS came in.
Everywhere else in CONGU had been doing it for years.

 

[PJ87]

It’s subjective, but I don’t find Royston that difficult, its not a long course, though the hills can compensate for that depending on the wind direction. But, I have played it a few times and know my way round, and am used to playing courses like that up on the Yorkshire moors.

If you catch Royston on a particularly windy day (like you did) then it is a challenge. It wound interesting to see if PCC kicked in yesterday. We had it at 2 and we are as windy as Royston.

1 apparently yesterday, wouldn't like to see a 3

What didn't help was on 3 Olly went right with his tee due to the left to right wind we kept having that way. His ball safely landed on 2nd fairway, mine was far safer in-between the two fairways and got lost

Also the par 3 5th hole over a valley didn't help I caught my club fat and straight down the valley lol

Other than that I'd say I scored ok for the conditions

Course itself isn't super hard, but the walk was just tough . Walking up hills is bad enough without a head wind

Coming down them with a tail wind is a bit nervy lol

 

[doublebogey7]

See that sounds a lot fairer.

One of the few appeals of going to WHS was getting more shots at harder courses. That made sense to me. Now they've changed it and that seems to be out the window, I'm back to just having the same PH everywhere. One step forward, two back.

You seem to have misunderstood the pre April 1st WHS, the shots you got did not reflect the reltive difficulty of the course. The April 1st changes have done has you thought were previousley in place by adding in CR (diffuculty)-Par(arbitary) into the calculation for your course handicap.

 

[rulefan]

It’s subjective, but I don’t find Royston that difficult, its not a long course, though the hills can compensate for that depending on the wind direction.

The Course and Bogey Ratings take account of gradients (Roll & Elevation)

 

[Deleted member 15717]

Royston is also wide open. On the vast majority of holes, you can hit it anywhere, and usually still find it. In the summer, the rough can get a bit ballistic. I have played it enough now, that I know it is a place to play matchplay, not strokeplay.

 

[Orikoru]

Royston is also wide open. On the vast majority of holes, you can hit it anywhere, and usually still find it. In the summer, the rough can get a bit ballistic. I have played it enough now, that I know it is a place to play matchplay, not strokeplay.

Rough was very long yesterday as well - we lost a ball each and were lucky not to lose more I think.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Rough was very long yesterday as well - we lost a ball each and were lucky not to lose more I think.

It’s a place to either be straight, or really wild off the tee.

 

[PJ87]

Rough was very long yesterday as well - we lost a ball each and were lucky not to lose more I think.

I think the losing one on hole 3 yet finding two more in the place we thought it might be was just a kick in the teeth

 

[PJ87]

It’s a place to either be straight, or really wild off the tee.

Except on the downhill par 3s! I did an excellent impression of a billy goat by not falling down the mountain .. somehow found the fringe both times aswell

 

[Backsticks]

Until you play it I'd say you can't judge.

As you should be aware slope isn't to do with difficulty.

My course is slope 111 but the actual difficulty is based on CR of 71.8 on a par 72

I think @Orikoru would testify my course is hard but yesterday was brutal

There does seem to be a very strong correlation though, from any courses I know.
Maybe it also stands to reason, difficult courses are proprtionately more difficult to high HIs.

 

[PJ87]

There does seem to be a very strong correlation though, from any courses I know.
Maybe it also stands to reason, difficult courses are proprtionately more difficult to high HIs.

As we all should be aware by now slope is only the difference that a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer would score. Which is why my course is low slope because we equally punish lower indexs.

 

[Backsticks]

As we all should be aware by now slope is only the difference that a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer would score. Which is why my course is low slope because we equally punish lower indexs.

Many people dont know that though. That so many courses do correlate, reinforces their misunderstanding. As a rough reckoner, Slope does indicate difficulty.

 

[PJ87]

Many people dont know that though. That so many courses do correlate, reinforces their misunderstanding. As a rough reckoner, Slope does indicate difficulty.

Many of the dislikes of whs are due to basic misunderstanding of how it works because people can't be bothered to read up on it.

It's not rocket science

 

[Orikoru]

Many of the dislikes of whs are due to basic misunderstanding of how it works because people can't be bothered to read up on it.

It's not rocket science

I would argue that some of the aspects are not exactly straightforward concepts and it doesn't surprise me that people struggle to understand them. When it's too taxing for the typical golfer to worry about we apply our own kind of 'layman's' meaning of it. Like, we know slope doesn't equal difficulty exactly, but there is a broad correlation that difficult courses tend to have higher slope ratings, so it's close enough to think of that way.

I don't even understand where 113 comes from as the mid-point number. They invented this calculation out of thin air, why would you pick the most awkward number possible? Why not make 100 the mid-point?? It's like they don't actually want the average golfer to understand it.

 

[Backsticks]

Many of the dislikes of whs are due to basic misunderstanding of how it works because people can't be bothered to read up on it.

It's not rocket science

Not all dislikes though.


And if there isnt sufficient benefit to merit the effort, then that in itself is a failure.
It would seem any touted benefits are now either discredited (adding to the cynicism and mistrust), or debatable as benefits, at best.
Would any of the regional authorities that were Congu, in their inner honesty, still stand over WHS being a good thing and having improved the lot and running of handicap golf ?

(quite apart from whether it was worth the change disruption).

 

[PJ87]

I would argue that some of the aspects are not exactly straightforward concepts and it doesn't surprise me that people struggle to understand them. When it's too taxing for the typical golfer to worry about we apply our own kind of 'layman's' meaning of it. Like, we know slope doesn't equal difficulty exactly, but there is a broad correlation that difficult courses tend to have higher slope ratings, so it's close enough to think of that way.

I don't even understand where 113 comes from as the mid-point number. They invented this calculation out of thin air, why would you pick the most awkward number possible? Why not make 100 the mid-point?? It's like they don't actually want the average golfer to understand it.

Compare it to the old system tho that people seemed to understand.. you go down x amount of you are this to this handicap , you go up 0.1 was easy but the going down and the other bits were far more complex

Least with this we all can have access to the system via our phones and just let the system do the hard work

 

[Orikoru]

Compare it to the old system tho that people seemed to understand.. you go down x amount of you are this to this handicap , you go up 0.1 was easy but the going down and the other bits were far more complex

Least with this we all can have access to the system via our phones and just let the system do the hard work

Old system was very easy. However many shots under handicap you were, you'd get cut that multiplied by 0.3 or 0.2 etc depending what category you were in. As soon as I finished my round I knew what my cut was going to be. I understood that one.

 

[PJ87]

Old system was very easy. However many shots under handicap you were, you'd get cut that multiplied by 0.3 or 0.2 etc depending what category you were in. As soon as I finished my round I knew what my cut was going to be. I understood that one.

Because you took time to learn it

 

[Orikoru]

Because you took time to learn it

There's no way you can argue that that wasn't a simpler calculation than what we have now.

I can do the maths for score differential minus the score dif it's replacing divided by 8 to work out my cut now - but I need a calculator. And working out the score differential in the first place? No chance.

 

[wjemather]

I don't even understand where 113 comes from as the mid-point number. They invented this calculation out of thin air, why would you pick the most awkward number possible? Why not make 100 the mid-point?? It's like they don't actually want the average golfer to understand it.

Apparently, the research that led to the development of Slope found that 1.13 was the average difference in the number of strokes taken on courses in the US for players with handicaps differing by 1 stroke.