• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

World Handicap System (WHS)

rulefan said:
Not sure I understand. RO would mean no change. Did one of your best 8 fall out of the last 20?
Click to expand...
What I’m saying it that despite those conditions and scores yesterday, PCC only went up 1. That it absolutely ridiculous.
95 entries only one person within 4 of par (net) and 3 within one of course rating.
If that doesn’t equate to at least a 2 shot increase in PCC I don’t know what would?!?
 
MendieGK said:
What I’m saying it that despite those conditions and scores yesterday, PCC only went up 1. That it absolutely ridiculous.
95 entries only one person within 4 of par (net) and 3 within one of course rating.
If that doesn’t equate to at least a 2 shot increase in PCC I don’t know what would?!?
Click to expand...

But if it did go up 2 would that round be one of your best 8?

In fact given what you are saying is it likely that it would be in anybody's best 8?
 
jim8flog said:
But if it did go up 2 would that round be one of your best 8?
Click to expand...
Yeah but to be honest, it more the shock that despite the conditions (and reflected scores) for the day the PCC only went up 1? In previous handicap system it would have been +3 RO only every single time....

What does it need for a +3 increase in PCC? An earthquake?
 
MendieGK said:
Yeah but to be honest, it more the shock that despite the conditions (and reflected scores) for the day the PCC only went up 1? In previous handicap system it would have been +3 RO only every single time....

What does it need for a +3 increase in PCC? An earthquake?
Click to expand...

Without going back over the figures

from the sound of it nobody would have been cut and nobody would have had a 0.1 increase. So from a handicap point of view a fairly meaningless comp.

Surely this is one of the benefits of the WHS - every qualifying comp counts good or bad.

I would say I have no idea of the maths behind the PCC adjustments but its a bit like comparing apples with pears to compare the two systems as both have different effects on a players handicap.
 
I, too, have not seen how the PCC calculation is done and how it compares with the old CSS calculation. Our comp on Tuesday had a PCC of 2.

Have gone back to Tuesday's results and calculated what CSS would have been under CONGU - SSS+2, so, the same as PCC. So, it would be interesting if someone did the old CSS calculation for the Burnham comp rather than a condemnation of WHS without any facts.
 
Last edited:
rosecott said:
I, too, have not seen how the PCC calculation is done and how it compares with the old CSS calculation. Our comp on Tuesday had a PCC of 2.

Have gone back to Tuesday's results and calculated what CSS would have been under CONGU - SSS+2, so, the same as PCC. So, it would be interesting if someone did the old CSS calculation for the Burnham comp rather than a condemnation of WHS without any facts.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The PCC algorithm is apparently more sophisticated the CSS tables and is built specifically for a 'best of' averaging system.
As Jim (nearly) said when he was climbing the stairs - Apples and Oranges ;)
 
rulefan said:
Exactly. The PCC algorithm is apparently more sophisticated the CSS tables and is built specifically for a 'best of' averaging system.
As Jim (nearly) said when he was climbing the stairs - Apples and Oranges ;)
Click to expand...
Well, we have to take their word for it that it is more sophisticated. I won't hold my breath though.

As far as the stated comp, where PCC was +1 but the scores apparently indicate it would have been +3 and reductions only in the CSS days, that sounds worrying. The person that finished +4 could well have shot a score that featured in their best 8. So, the PCC calculation is important.

Would be interesting to know what CSS would have been.
 
MendieGK said:
I’ve been really positive about the new handicap system, until yesterday.
Played in the medal at burnham.

Par 70. Only 10’players broke nett 80 out of 95!! Yet the PCC reckons the course only played 1 shot harder than normal!!
1 shot!!!
In the old system it would have been reductions only all day long.
absolutely ridiculous
Click to expand...
My mate played in a comp yesterday , no one played to handicap - PCC didn’t move at all

I still think the whole thing isn’t working correctly at the moment
 
Liverpoolphil said:
My mate played in a comp yesterday , no one played to handicap - PCC didn’t move at all

I still think the whole thing isn’t working correctly at the moment
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind betting that there is still an element in the calculation involving the proportion of players in "what used to be buffer".
 
Swango1980 said:
Well, we have to take their word for it that it is more sophisticated. I won't hold my breath though.

As far as the stated comp, where PCC was +1 but the scores apparently indicate it would have been +3 and reductions only in the CSS days, that sounds worrying. The person that finished +4 could well have shot a score that featured in their best 8. So, the PCC calculation is important.

Would be interesting to know what CSS would have been.
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at my post #2243 the old CSS came out the same as PCC. I, too, would like it if the calculation could be done for the Burnham comp. I'd do it out of interest if I had the results.
 
jim8flog said:
Without going back over the figures

from the sound of it nobody would have been cut and nobody would have had a 0.1 increase. So from a handicap point of view a fairly meaningless comp.

Surely this is one of the benefits of the WHS - every qualifying comp counts good or bad.

I would say I have no idea of the maths behind the PCC adjustments but its a bit like comparing apples with pears to compare the two systems as both have different effects on a players handicap.
Click to expand...
rosecott said:
I, too, have not seen how the PCC calculation is done and how it compares with the old CSS calculation. Our comp on Tuesday had a PCC of 2.
Click to expand...
rosecott said:
Well, if you look at my post #2243 the old CSS came out the same as PCC. I, too, would like it if the calculation could be done for the Burnham comp. I'd do it out of interest if I had the results.
Click to expand...
I could provide you with the scoresheet, but it admittedly wouldn’t take into account net double bogeys and people achieving buffer because of that. If I am wrong I’d happily hold my hands up.

But par 70, SSS previously 73.

99 players

Officially only 5 players hit buffer and Only 7 players had better than nett 77. So we can assume less than 10 would make buffer after rule 19 adjustments.
I’ve also checked every NR, and not one of them had a score that had just one or two bad holes

On average around 19% would have to reach hit buffer for css to only move 1.

Imo it’s not even close
 
MendieGK said:
I could provide you with the scoresheet, but it admittedly wouldn’t take into account net double bogeys and people achieving buffer because of that. If I am wrong I’d happily hold my hands up.

But par 70, SSS previously 73.

99 players

Officially only 5 players hit buffer and Only 7 players had better than nett 77. So we can assume less than 10 would make buffer after rule 19 adjustments.
I’ve also checked every NR, and not one of them had a score that had just one or two bad holes

On average around 19% would have to reach hit buffer for css to only move 1.

Imo it’s not even close
Click to expand...

Need numbers in each handicap category....
 
MendieGK said:
I could provide you with the scoresheet, but it admittedly wouldn’t take into account net double bogeys and people achieving buffer because of that. If I am wrong I’d happily hold my hands up.

But par 70, SSS previously 73.

99 players

Officially only 5 players hit buffer and Only 7 players had better than nett 77. So we can assume less than 10 would make buffer after rule 19 adjustments.
I’ve also checked every NR, and not one of them had a score that had just one or two bad holes

On average around 19% would have to reach hit buffer for css to only move 1.

Imo it’s not even close
Click to expand...
What is the Course Rating and Slope?
 
Looking through my last 20 scores on the EG app I have a 79 showing as a counting score but a 78 which shows as non counting. Anyone know what could cause this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Orikoru
Why can't slope ratings be more fluid?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
2K
mikejohnchapman
mikejohnchapman
B
Amount of cards required for comps
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
9K
Lord Tyrion
Lord Tyrion
P
Getting a handicap for someone likely to be at max hcp
Replies
2
Views
752
Petercool
P
rudebhoy
Strange email from EG
Replies
6
Views
2K
Lord Tyrion
Lord Tyrion
P
  • Locked
World Handicap System
Replies
10
Views
1K
Billysboots
Billysboots
Top