WHS doesn't work

[rulefan]

*WorldHS that is interpreted and implemented differently in nearly every jurisdiction in the world

Far more closely aligned than the completely different systems in force before

*The big rise in index for higher handicaps and drop for lower handicaps upon conversion

No documented proof and denied by a Regional Advisor recently

*the 95% limit, tacitly admitting that the handicaps are wrong and trying to fudge a solution

Previously used in US and Australian systems as 'bonus for excellence' but arguably unnecessary.

*Team handicap allowances based on utter guesswork

As they were before. No record of CONGU ever analysing scores and many clubs 'doing their own thing'

*No winter closed period (again other jurisdictions are doing this)

How does this work for clubs where the course is eminently playable all year?

*even CONGU nations going in different directions, eg. SG uses exact index for 95% calculation whereas other Congu countries do rounded before taking their 95%

I sympathise with this one but it does make the boards or maths more complicated

*SSS was the biggest problem under CONGU, it was really the only issue with the old system with courses clearly mis-aligned, yet this figure has remained unchanged (except you now see the decimal)

All Women and Scotland, Ireland & Wales men except the EGU (ie men) had been using the USGA methodology for more than a dozen years preceding WHS. The old EGU SSS process was essentially the same as the USGA CR but without Slope. When all (ex EGU) courses were rated prior to WHS very few resulted in a difference between SSS and CR of more than 1 stroke. Those that did were as a result of significant changes since the last rating, often not having been notified.

 

[AussieKB]

yes in OZ we use 93% when an OZ official was asked how they came up with that number, his reply was he had no idea but the computer determined it, you would have thought he knew how the formula was worked out.

Main problem with people playing in different countries is that their card is not inputted into their country WHS unless he/she takes it back,
which leaves it Open to abuse.

 

[patricks148]

One thing I have noticed of late is that's very open to abuse or should I say mistakes. Play at two clubs roll ups and noticed this weekend and last week how many took their handicap from the wrong tees giving them a more favourable handicap from a forward tee. Obviously these are not counting comps so no effecting players overall results, but the comps are for prize money.

 

[wjemather]

I fuly understand the difficulty in producing a sensible adjustment for amateur golfers and think it is an almost impossible task but no one I have discussed this with, including EG officials and Regional Handicap Advisors, has ever said it is a vast improvement over CSS especially in UK conditions - this strikes me a bit of a stretch.

Mathematically, it's in a different league.

 

[wjemather]

Plucking a number out of thin air would have been a vast improvement.......PCC ain't it.

Not understanding something doesn't automatically make it rubbish.

 

[Voyager EMH]

95%, 90%, 85% and 75% are not "reductions" for all.

For a few, these percentage adjustments are "increases" in handicap.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Far more closely aligned than the completely different systems in force before

Indeed, but still not what was promised, so why bother when it's all being done differently?

No documented proof and denied by a Regional Advisor recently

So RA with no documented proof says it didn;t happen, despite all clubs seeing it happen? If you were 4 or less you went down, if you were mid-teens + you went up, with variations in the middle

Previously used in US and Australian systems as 'bonus for excellence' but arguably unnecessary.

Inarguably not near enough to compensate for higher handicaps now having an advantage

As they were before. No record of CONGU ever analysing scores and many clubs 'doing their own thing'

Agree on this, however again the swing to high handicap advantage is now very marked. Allowances before were probably right except scrambles where 10% was too low and massively favoured low h'cap teams

How does this work for clubs where the course is eminently playable all year?

They can still run comps, just not h'cap counting. Forcing clubs to hold counting events when there's no run etc is a nonsense

I sympathise with this one but it does make the boards or maths more complicated

Agree with you too, unfortunately SG in their wisdom didn't tell any clubs they were doing this, we all spent money on marker boards that show handicaps as per the rUK way of working, what a waste of money, and the confusion it caused in year one was immense

All Women and Scotland, Ireland & Wales men except the EGU (ie men) had been using the USGA methodology for more than a dozen years preceding WHS. The old EGU SSS process was essentially the same as the USGA CR but without Slope. When all (ex EGU) courses were rated prior to WHS very few resulted in a difference between SSS and CR of more than 1 stroke. Those that did were as a result of significant changes since the last rating, often not having been notified.

Again I agree with you here, but locally we all know the "well handicapped" clubs, and it's because the methodology is wrong. Where I can't say, but it clearly does not create equality of ratings and was (IMO) the only thing that needed to change in the old system.

 

[AussieKB]

The What Handicap System when introduced to OZ, a survey was done and single figure golfers went down a shot on average, teen's went out 1 shot and 20 and above went out 3-4 shots.

First event I played under this new system, it was a Vet's at another course, my handicap did not change but players from my club were getting 1-2 shots extra, did not need to be Einstein to work out single figure golfers were getting screwed.

In the first 12 months not a single figure player won an event, hence all the high handicappers love the system, still see scores in the high 40's on a regular basis.

 

[wjemather]

Indeed, but still not what was promised, so why bother when it's all being done differently?

It is exactly what was promised - a single system with regional flexibility that results in a handicap that is portable, enabling players to compete equitably around the world.

Inarguably not near enough to compensate for higher handicaps now having an advantage

Agree on this, however again the swing to high handicap advantage is now very marked. Allowances before were probably right except scrambles where 10% was too low and massively favoured low h'cap teams

All the evidence seems to suggest it's pretty fair across the handicap range; frequency of victory for various handicap ranges is simply more closely aligned with proportion of the field in each range.

They can still run comps, just not h'cap counting. Forcing clubs to hold counting events when there's no run etc is a nonsense

This is untrue. Clubs have the freedom to determine for themselves if conditions are unsuitable for handicapping; however "no run" (or cold, or wet, or windy) is not a good reason.

Agree with you too, unfortunately SG in their wisdom didn't tell any clubs they were doing this, we all spent money on marker boards that show handicaps as per the rUK way of working, what a waste of money, and the confusion it caused in year one was immense

This is untrue (as established when discussed extensively in another thread about 2 years ago).

 

[wjemather]

The What Handicap System when introduced to OZ, a survey was done and single figure golfers went down a shot on average, teen's went out 1 shot and 20 and above went out 3-4 shots.

First event I played under this new system, it was a Vet's at another course, my handicap did not change but players from my club were getting 1-2 shots extra, did not need to be Einstein to work out single figure golfers were getting screwed.

In the first 12 months not a single figure player won an event, hence all the high handicappers love the system, still see scores in the high 40's on a regular basis.

It was higher handicap golfers that were (by design) being screwed previously.

 

[Imurg]

Not understanding something doesn't automatically make it rubbish.

Understanding something doesn't automatically make it good...

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Have I accidentally stumbled into a philosophy forum?

 

[AussieKB]

What Handicap System does not encourage people to get lessons to improve, it just gives you more handicap, all the way to 54 for NOW, how long before people want more ?

 

[Neilds]

The What Handicap System when introduced to OZ, a survey was done and single figure golfers went down a shot on average, teen's went out 1 shot and 20 and above went out 3-4 shots.

First event I played under this new system, it was a Vet's at another course, my handicap did not change but players from my club were getting 1-2 shots extra, did not need to be Einstein to work out single figure golfers were getting screwed.

In the first 12 months not a single figure player won an event, hence all the high handicappers love the system, still see scores in the high 40's on a regular basis.

But you will not see the same people getting scores in the 40s as their handicaps will be cut when these higher scores become part of the 8 counting scores. Bit of a strange argument

 

[wjemather]

What Handicap System does not encourage people to get lessons to improve, it just gives you more handicap, all the way to 54 for NOW, how long before people want more ?

This isn't a function or goal of any handicap system.

 

[D-S]

Mathematically, it's in a different league.

What on earth does this mean? And how does this mean it is a vast improvement?

 

[Swango1980]

Understanding something doesn't automatically make it good...

I think you should have said "not understanding something doesn't automatically make it good"

Does anyone in here truly understand PCC? I think it has been criticised, fairly, because it hasn't seem intuitive. I don't think it is unfair to be critical of something, as you and many others have, if it doesn't seem to be doing what you'd expect it to do. Doesn't mean it is wrong, but it puts more onus on the Authorities to convince us it is correct.

For those that defend it, I suspect the only argument is "it is based on thousands of scores, so it must be right"? I'm not convinced by this argument, especially as England Golf recently seemed to question it themselves (and I can't remember if it was actually changed).

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I think you should have said "not understanding something doesn't automatically make it good"

Does anyone in here truly understand PCC? I think it has been criticised, fairly, because it hasn't seem intuitive. I don't think it is unfair to be critical of something, as you and many others have, if it doesn't seem to be doing what you'd expect it to do. Doesn't mean it is wrong, but it puts more onus on the Authorities to convince us it is correct.

For those that defend it, I suspect the only argument is "it is based on thousands of scores, so it must be right"? I'm not convinced by this argument, especially as England Golf recently seemed to question it themselves (and I can't remember if it was actually changed).

Do the majority of people who play golf care about PCC? Or even that much about the nuances of a handicap system?

Like with most things it’s just a vocal minority making noise about the changes.

 

[wjemather]

What on earth does this mean? And how does this mean it is a vast improvement?

It's like comparing year-8 school maths and degree-level statistics.

 

[Slab]

Do the majority of people who play golf care about PCC? Or even that much about the nuances of a handicap system?

Like with most things it’s just a vocal minority making noise about the changes.

Can I be the majority

Nah, I don't really know what it is or what its supposed to do & I don't care (ignorance really is bliss)
I just play golf and write the score/s down. If my gross is in the mid-high 80's I'm a happy chappy