World Handicap System (WHS)

[Mozza14]

PSS should have been PCC (now corrected)

Perhaps we have been at cross purposes. When you say CR (ie SSS in old money) will be used do you mean without an adjustment for the difference between CSS and SSS?
I was told that (CSS-SSS) would be used also in place of a PCC adjustment.

I am told that any tees not rated at Nov 2nd will use the current SSS and an 'average' Slope of 125 (I think) would be allocated for the purpose of the transition.

PCC will be used for all scores submitted from day 1.

I have stated all along that CR would be used with the adjustment for CSS-SSS. That is how the EG presentation slides set it out and how I have developed my own modelling.

As I also said, I could see CSS being used where there was no rating found.

My concern only related to statements, made on the forum that for the transition, Course Rating was not going to be used and CSS was always going to be used. I thought that was incorrect and it looks like we now agree.

 

[jim8flog]

I thought that was incorrect and it looks like we now agree.

Glald to see. I thought by the time you two get to an agreement England Golf will have issued the Handicap Indexes.

 

[nickjdavis]

For those of you involved in your clubs migration towards the WHS, how have you handled the collection of user data (emails and dates of birth) that the handicapping system software is supposed to be uploading to the WHS platform from the 5th October onwards?

Were all ISV's ready and prepared for this with an appropriate release of software to allow the data to be pushed?

Was the data readily available in your handicapping software or did you need to collate or import it from another source?

Did you have any push back from members regarding the use of such data?

 

[rulefan]

It seems that ClubV1 and EG had not properly considered the implications of the V1 interface to HDID which needs a unique email address. Because we use the full package we have set up email addresses for the (apparently few) Members who didn't have one. As it happens half of them haven't returned a card since 2018.

We are waiting for the day when annual fees to EG and the county are based on players who want/have a handicap rather than 'paid up members'. It could be sooner than expected.

 

[rulefan]

I can confirm that the CSS will be used

 

[Deleted member 23344]

I apologise if this has been addressed in the previous 54 pages, but I haven't read them all. As a layman on handicap matters, one thing that puzzles me about the new system is that it states that your new handicap will be based on an average of the best 8 of the last 20 rounds. But, in principle, the use of an average will lead to a handicap that one can play better than on 50% of occasions; e.g. if your best 8 are four rounds at 90 and four at 98, the handicap will be based on 94, but you can shoot 90 every other round. I thought your handicap was meant to be you on a very good day. Or should the wording be a WEIGHTED average; i.e. biased towards your best scores?

 

[Crazyface]

I've a question. I've found a site that you can search and find all golf course slope ratings on. So I've checked some local ones. Macclesfield is rated higher than my place and amazingly higher than my last clubs. I can honestly say this is utter conkers. Three of Macc s par fours do not require a driver. In fact I can and have reached all four greens from the tee. So I do not trust these ratings. They are utter smelly stuff. Who rated the course's????

 

[Deleted member 23344]

I've a question. I've found a site that you can search and find all golf course slope ratings on. So I've checked some local ones. Macclesfield is rated higher than my place and amazingly higher than my last clubs. I can honestly say this is utter conkers. Three of Macc s par fours do not require a driver. In fact I can and have reached all four greens from the tee. So I do not trust these ratings. They are utter smelly stuff. Who rated the course's????

To my mind, there are many anomalies in the courses I have played. But it is not a straight comparison of difficulty, but a measure of how much more difficult a 20 capper would find it as compared to a scratch golfer. Even so, some ratings appear odd; e.g. the West Sussex off the yellows at a lowly 116.

 

[Foxholer]

I've a question. I've found a site that you can search and find all golf course slope ratings on. So I've checked some local ones. Macclesfield is rated higher than my place and amazingly higher than my last clubs. I can honestly say this is utter conkers. Three of Macc s par fours do not require a driver. In fact I can and have reached all four greens from the tee. So I do not trust these ratings. They are utter smelly stuff. Who rated the course's????

How do the Course Ratings compare? That's the 'real' comparison of difficulty - at least, it equivalent to SSS. As CK stated - and it's been stated here multiple times - Slope is a measure much more difficult the course is for a 'Bogey player' (20 capper) than for a scratch one.

Btw. The bold bits 'do not compute'!

Oh!..And here's the official Site...https://ncrdb.usga.org Just remember to set country properly.

 

[rulefan]

I apologise if this has been addressed in the previous 54 pages, but I haven't read them all. As a layman on handicap matters, one thing that puzzles me about the new system is that it states that your new handicap will be based on an average of the best 8 of the last 20 rounds. But, in principle, the use of an average will lead to a handicap that one can play better than on 50% of occasions; e.g. if your best 8 are four rounds at 90 and four at 98, the handicap will be based on 94, but you can shoot 90 every other round. I thought your handicap was meant to be you on a very good day. Or should the wording be a WEIGHTED average; i.e. biased towards your best scores?

I think the is a misunderstanding here.
There is a significant difference between your average of the best 8 and saying you can play better on 50% of (all) occasions. What about all the other scores? How many were worse than 90?
Will you actually play better than 90 every alternate time you play?

 

[rulefan]

I've a question. I've found a site that you can search and find all golf course slope ratings on. So I've checked some local ones. Macclesfield is rated higher than my place and amazingly higher than my last clubs. I can honestly say this is utter conkers. Three of Macc s par fours do not require a driver. In fact I can and have reached all four greens from the tee. So I do not trust these ratings. They are utter smelly stuff. Who rated the course's????

Do you mean Course Rating or Slope Rating?

 

[Deleted member 23344]

I think the is a misunderstanding here.
There is a significant difference between your average of the best 8 and saying you can play better on 50% of (all) occasions. What about all the other scores? How many were worse than 90?
Will you actually play better than 90 every alternate time you play?

They could be the only 8 cards put in ... in which case my hypothetical scenario will apply. There is always a problem with using averages for a set of widely differing values.

 

[Swango1980]

They could be the only 8 cards put in ... in which case my hypothetical scenario will apply. There is always a problem with using averages for a set of widely differing values.

This is incorrect. If a golfer ONLY had 8 scores in, the Handicap Index is NOT the average of those 8 scores. Until 20 scores are provided, the system takes a specific number of submitted scores until 20 have been submitted, at which point it uses the best 8.

Once 20 scores are in, as rulefan says, the average of your best 8 is very different to the average of all 20 scores

 

[Swango1980]

I've a question. I've found a site that you can search and find all golf course slope ratings on. So I've checked some local ones. Macclesfield is rated higher than my place and amazingly higher than my last clubs. I can honestly say this is utter conkers. Three of Macc s par fours do not require a driver. In fact I can and have reached all four greens from the tee. So I do not trust these ratings. They are utter smelly stuff. Who rated the course's????

Trained representatives from your golfing union would have done the measurements. Slope rating has nothing at all to do with the difficulty of the course, only the relative difficulty between low and high handicappers. You can have a very hard course (harder for everyone), but it really is more punishing for lower handicappers as all the obstacles are in play for them, but not quite for the higher handicappers. For example, if every par 4 and 5 had a lake about 210 yards from tee that could not be carried, you eliminate many low handicappers advantage of length, but dont really hurt the high handicapper who can only drive it 200 yards. That hard course could have a low slope. You could then have a course that is generally short and considered very easy. However, you have heavy rough or bunkers that extend from tee to about 180-200 yards forward from tee. Generally the low handicappers can hit it over all this and give themselves chips orr even putts for eagle, yet the high handicappers can get caught out by obstacles. So, easy course (still for everyone), but relatively harder for high handicappers and higher slope than first course.

 

[jim8flog]

They could be the only 8 cards put in ... in which case my hypothetical scenario will apply. There is always a problem with using averages for a set of widely differing values.

if there are only 8 cards in the system it is not the average of the best 8 it is the average of the lowest 2

It works like this if there are less than 20

Number of qualifying scores and calculation

3 Lowest single score minus 2 shots
4 Lowest single score minus 1 shot
5 Lowest score
6 Average of the lowest 2 scores minus 1 shot
7 to 8 Average of the lowest 2
9 to 11 Average of the lowest 3
12 to 14 Average of the lowest 4
15-16 Average of the lowest 5
17-18 Average of the lowest 6
19 Average of the lowest 7
20 or more Average of the lowest 8

it continues incrementally until there are 20 scores in the system.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Sorry if this has been answered but once the WHS comes in, will that be the end of Non Qualifying Comps?

 

[ger147]

Sorry if this has been answered but once the WHS comes in, will that be the end of Non Qualifying Comps?

No.

 

[Crazyface]

Do you mean Course Rating or Slope Rating?

Slope. Macc is rated 7 points higher than where I am and 14 points higher than my last club. This is ridiculous in my opinion. I know it's hard to know if you never played the courses and think I'm nuts, most of you do, but honestly. As I say three of the par four holes at Macclesfield golf course I wouldn't take a driver, in a comp, as they can be done with ease with a flick 5 iron and flick PW. This for me is just stupid. And one of the par fours, wind with, I can also reach. Me, 240 off the tee. Rubbish ratings. I cannot do this at my current course of my last course. Both tough tough places. I'm sure there will be more anomolies out there.

 

[Crazyface]

Trained representatives from your golfing union would have done the measurements. Slope rating has nothing at all to do with the difficulty of the course, only the relative difficulty between low and high handicappers. You can have a very hard course (harder for everyone), but it really is more punishing for lower handicappers as all the obstacles are in play for them, but not quite for the higher handicappers. For example, if every par 4 and 5 had a lake about 210 yards from tee that could not be carried, you eliminate many low handicappers advantage of length, but dont really hurt the high handicapper who can only drive it 200 yards. That hard course could have a low slope. You could then have a course that is generally short and considered very easy. However, you have heavy rough or bunkers that extend from tee to about 180-200 yards forward from tee. Generally the low handicappers can hit it over all this and give themselves chips orr even putts for eagle, yet the high handicappers can get caught out by obstacles. So, easy course (still for everyone), but relatively harder for high handicappers and higher slope than first course.

Got that. But, in my opinion, they have got it seriously wrong at my local course. It's defence is that it's very hilly, a mate of mine hates it because of this, and sometimes the pin positions can be difficult. But when I played there for one season, I could get at least one birdie a round, sometimes more, and I NEVER get these.

 

[ger147]

Slope. Macc is rated 7 points higher than where I am and 14 points higher than my last club. This is ridiculous in my opinion. I know it's hard to know if you never played the courses and think I'm nuts, most of you do, but honestly. As I say three of the par four holes at Macclesfield golf course I wouldn't take a driver, in a comp, as they can be done with ease with a flick 5 iron and flick PW. This for me is just stupid. And one of the par fours, wind with, I can also reach. Me, 240 off the tee. Rubbish ratings. I cannot do this at my current course of my last course. Both tough tough places. I'm sure there will be more anomolies out there.

Slope rating is not the measure of a course's difficulty relative to other courses. The measure to compare the relative difficulty of one course to another is the Course rating.