World Handicap changes - recreational rounds, card marking.

[Newby]

> @davep043 said:

> And the "white paper" that I linked doesn't say anything about attesting scores. It only indicates that the acceptability of "recreational scores" will be determined by the national or regional authority.

I get a distinct impression that the USGA is going to cop-out of their original support.

 

[Deceptively Short]

Fundamentally there seems as if there will be minor changes for US golfers e.g. 10/20 to 8/20.

For CONGU folk it means the introduction of Course Rating and Slope (an overdue, good thing) and an averaging system instead of a ratchet but in all reality everything else remaining the same, the same scores count I.e. singles strokeplay competitions and pre registered, attested ‘social’ singles strokeplay scores what we already have in place and call ‘supplementary scores. But the raw differences between all rounds (US) and just really competition stroke play rounds (everywhere else) remain the same. Meaning that the actual correlation of handicap index number between regions will remain as far away as it is now. Vanity handicaps will still exist in the US but will still be very rare (as they are difficult to get) under CONGU and sand bagging will continue to flourish.

This, as it is put out before us, does not meet its target - unfortunately.

However, to achieve the states goal you would need real cultural change in one or other region and this appears to be what they are not prepared to strive for.

[davep043]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> But the raw differences between all rounds (US) and just really competition stroke play rounds (everywhere else) remain the same. Meaning that the actual correlation of handicap index number between regions will remain as far away as it is now. ........

> However, to achieve the states goal you would need real cultural change in one or other region and this appears to be what they are not prepared to strive for.

 

Although its never been explicitly stated I believe this will be the case. The biggest difference has been the types of scores used to calculate a handicap, and that is still being left to the discretion of the National Associations. Those of us who support the idea of a Worldwide Handicap System We can hope that the 2020 changes are just the beginning, and that additional efforts will continue, to try to truly unify handicaps. I don't know if that will ever happen.

Calculations changes aren't so tough, culture changes are next to impossible.

[Augster]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > But the raw differences between all rounds (US) and just really competition stroke play rounds (everywhere else) remain the same. Meaning that the actual correlation of handicap index number between regions will remain as far away as it is now. ........

> > However, to achieve the states goal you would need real cultural change in one or other region and this appears to be what they are not prepared to strive for.

>

> Although its never been explicitly stated I believe this will be the case. The biggest difference has been the types of scores used to calculate a handicap, and that is still being left to the discretion of the National Associations. Those of us who support the idea of a Worldwide Handicap System We can hope that the 2020 changes are just the beginning, and that additional efforts will continue, to try to truly unify handicaps. I don't know if that will ever happen.

> Calculations changes aren't so tough, culture changes are next to impossible.

 

Everything I’ve read on the subject points to baby steps. Make a change, deal with the blowback. Wait for people to get used to the change, then make another change, deal with the blowback, wait for people to get used to it etc.

 

Until finally, a few years down the road, say 2026, there is a unified WHS.

 

To shove “this is the new cap system and it’s our way or the highway” all at once on the wide world of golfers would be a huge mistake. And they know this.

 

 

[scott_Donald]

hmmm interesting reading so far - so how will this effect me -

 

Member of Scottish course; right now need three scores to maintain handicap from competition on home course, currently sitting on my a** since it is heavy rain out and didn't play today I will struggle to get the three comp rounds this year in.

Living in Houston 10 months of the year; I assume I can then from 2020 put in scores for my handicap from playing in Houston and maintain my handicap.

 

My course has a stupid high slope so assume this would effect things too.

 

 

[Deceptively Short]

> @Augster said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > > But the raw differences between all rounds (US) and just really competition stroke play rounds (everywhere else) remain the same. Meaning that the actual correlation of handicap index number between regions will remain as far away as it is now. ........

> > > However, to achieve the states goal you would need real cultural change in one or other region and this appears to be what they are not prepared to strive for.

> >

> > Although its never been explicitly stated I believe this will be the case. The biggest difference has been the types of scores used to calculate a handicap, and that is still being left to the discretion of the National Associations. Those of us who support the idea of a Worldwide Handicap System We can hope that the 2020 changes are just the beginning, and that additional efforts will continue, to try to truly unify handicaps. I don't know if that will ever happen.

> > Calculations changes aren't so tough, culture changes are next to impossible.

>

> Everything I’ve read on the subject points to baby steps. Make a change, deal with the blowback. Wait for people to get used to the change, then make another change, deal with the blowback, wait for people to get used to it etc.

>

> Until finally, a few years down the road, say 2026, there is a unified WHS.

>

> To shove “this is the new cap system and it’s our way or the highway” all at once on the wide world of golfers would be a huge mistake. And they know this.

>

>

My point is that the only steps they have taken are the easiest and they aren’t going to get any serious ‘blowback’ on any of these. These are mechanics and do not address the fundamental golf differences on which a golfers handicap index is based. Until these differences are addressed, there is no WHS.

I am sure there would be ‘serious blow back’ if CONGU were imposed on the US or vice versa and the changes do not take even a baby step towards compromise on these real key issues.

 

 

[mark m]

If I am not mistaken, it looks like adjustments are being made to some of the proposed/rumoured changes?

I see NDB and 8 of 20 scores look to be solid. And a way to adjust the rating based on conditions. However . . .

 

1. But (and perhaps I am mistaken) - for the USGA Handicap System - I thought they were going to change the multiplier to 0.93 (from 0.96)? Now it looks like there will be no multipler? Is that correct?

 

2. And what about tournament scores? I was under the impression 'T' scores were going away and attested competition scores were going to be implemented? This would obviously mean courses would have to offer guidance and many more competitive opportunites to their members. And we were waiting to hear if they were doing away with non attested "casual round" scores? (As Augster suggested, this must be considered a bridge too far?)

 

If - again for the US - they are going to continue to allow non-attested scores to be posted, they will also have to allow clubs to continue to post tournament/competition scores and those scores must be designated as such and should continue to stay in the system for 12 months even if they are not in the most recent 20 scores. Or we will have a much worse system than the one we currently have. They must know that - so therefore it looks like our system won't be changing much?

 

I am missing something?

 

[davep043]

> @"mark m" said:

> If I am not mistaken, it looks like adjustments are being made to some of the proposed/rumoured changes?

> I see NDB and 8 of 20 scores look to be solid. And a way to adjust the rating based on conditions. However . . .

>

> 1. But (and perhaps I am mistaken) - for the USGA Handicap System - I thought they were going to change the multiplier to 0.93 (from 0.96)? Now it looks like there will be no multipler? Is that correct?

>

> 2. And what about tournament scores? I was under the impression 'T' scores were going away and attested competition scores were going to be implemented? This would obviously mean courses would have to offer guidance and many more competitive opportunites to their members. And we were waiting to hear if they were doing away with non attested "casual round" scores? (As Augster suggested, this must be considered a bridge too far?)

>

> If - again for the US - they are going to continue to allow non-attested scores to be posted, they will also have to allow clubs to continue to post tournament/competition scores and those scores must be designated as such and should continue to stay in the system for 12 months even if they are not in the most recent 20 scores. Or we will have a much worse system than the one we currently have. They must know that - so therefore it looks like our system won't be changing much?

>

> I am missing something?

>

 

Based on the recently released summary that I linked, it appears there will be no "factor" of 0.93 or 0.96 or anything other than 1.0

But that summary really doesn't get into the issue of "recreational" scores, whether attested or not, nor does it talk about differentiating Tournament scores from casual rounds. My best guess is that some of this will fall on the USGA (or other National Association) to decide, as "local" modifications to the global system. I agree with others, its not truly global until they unite all of these details. My hope, same as @Augster suggests, is that we'll see more incremental changes in the years to come.

[Newby]

The vibes I'm getting are that 'Tournaments' will not be differentiated. They are really the same as CONGU, EGA and GA 'competitions'. Anything formally organised will be treated in the same way as an attested score - as they will involve a marker of course.

CONGU et al already make a gesture towards 'recreational' scores with their pre-declared/attested supplementary scores.

It is going to be the attesting that will be a tough one in the US (& Canada I guess) and will take a few years to be accepted.

 

But I have often wondered how many actually go out on their own and play a full round under the Rules of Golf and return a score .I suspect a fair proportion will be doing a bit of practicing or taking multiple mulligans. Do they **all** really hole out?

[rogolf]

> @Newby said:

> The vibes I'm getting are that 'Tournaments' will not be differentiated. They are really the same as CONGU, EGA and GA 'competitions'. Anything formally organised will be treated in the same way as an attested score - as they will involve a marker of course.

> CONGU et al already make a gesture towards 'recreational' scores with their pre-declared/attested supplementary scores.

> **It is going to be the attesting that will be a tough one in the US (& Canada I guess) **and will take a few years to be accepted.

>

> But I have often wondered how many actually **go out on their own and play a full round under the Rules of Golf** and return a score .I suspect a fair proportion will be doing a bit of practicing or taking multiple mulligans. Do they **all** really hole out?

Attesting has been an issue since the discussions began. Golf Canada's online system has a space where the player can enter the attestor's name - not many use this input field, but it has been there for several years. This was identified to the original R&A chair of the WHS and, knowing him, I'm sure was discussed at meetings.

Scores made playing alone are not to be entered in the US and Canada systems, and there are provisions in the handicapping systems for holes not completed (not "holing out", ie, gimmies)

 

[Augster]

The USGA already made the HUGE leap (it seems) of not allowing scores when you play by yourself. Many still put those scores in, because they are being “truthful” and want “an accurate handicap”. Whatever. They are vanity capping themselves, which is fine with everyone but who they get partnered with in events.

 

That was the big leap and the USGA already made it and kept it in the rules despite all the anger and rage directed towards them.

 

The smaller step will be attestation. Will it really be that hard to get one guy you are playing with to attest your score? I’m nearly always playing with one of my friends. Have them sign the card at the end will take 2 seconds and won’t affect my scores in the least. My cap will be the same. The only time I play with people I don’t know is in tourneys and qualifiers, and we have to sign the cards anyway or take DQ.

 

So I can see doing away with T scores once they implement attestation. But I’d like them to keep the T score computations all the same. It’s much easier to point out sandbaggers and helps in peer review.

 

I imagine they are getting rid of .96/.93 simply because they are going 8/20. The differentials of scores 9 and 10 on my last 20 are usually 2 shots higher than my cap. Throwing those out will lower my cap much more than .96 will. But really, it’ll be a minor change in cap.

 

My current cap is 6.1 with the .96 etc. added into the mix. Doing 8/20 with no .96, my cap falls to 5.9.

 

Not a big difference and the formula is easier to explain to people. I’ll miss getting a shot sometimes. Our white tees are a slope of 122, so I’m a 7 there with either 6.1 or 5.9.

 

 

[rogolf]

> @Augster said:

> The USGA already made the HUGE leap (it seems) of not allowing scores when you play by yourself. Many still put those scores in, because they are being “truthful” and want “an accurate handicap”. Whatever. They are vanity capping themselves, which is fine with everyone but who they get partnered with in events.

>

> That was the big leap and the USGA already made it and kept it in the rules despite all the anger and rage directed towards them.

>

> The smaller step will be attestation. Will it really be that hard to get one guy you are playing with to attest your score? I’m nearly always playing with one of my friends. Have them sign the card at the end will take 2 seconds and won’t affect my scores in the least. My cap will be the same. The only time I play with people I don’t know is in tourneys and qualifiers, and we have to sign the cards anyway or take DQ.

>

> So I can see doing away with T scores once they implement attestation. But I’d like them to keep the T score computations all the same. It’s much easier to point out sandbaggers and helps in peer review.

>

> I imagine they are getting rid of .96/.93 simply because they are going 8/20. The differentials of scores 9 and 10 on my last 20 are usually 2 shots higher than my cap. Throwing those out will lower my cap much more than .96 will. But really, it’ll be a minor change in cap.

>

> My current cap is 6.1 with the .96 etc. added into the mix. Doing 8/20 with no .96, my cap falls to 5.9.

>

> Not a big difference and the formula is easier to explain to people. **I’ll miss getting a shot sometimes. Our white tees are a slope of 122, so I’m a 7 there with either 6.1 or 5.9.**

>

>

I thought you'd be a 6 at an index of 5.9 and slope 122? Or is my math wrong?

 

[Augster]

> @rogolf said:

> > @Augster said:

> > The USGA already made the HUGE leap (it seems) of not allowing scores when you play by yourself. Many still put those scores in, because they are being “truthful” and want “an accurate handicap”. Whatever. They are vanity capping themselves, which is fine with everyone but who they get partnered with in events.

> >

> > That was the big leap and the USGA already made it and kept it in the rules despite all the anger and rage directed towards them.

> >

> > The smaller step will be attestation. Will it really be that hard to get one guy you are playing with to attest your score? I’m nearly always playing with one of my friends. Have them sign the card at the end will take 2 seconds and won’t affect my scores in the least. My cap will be the same. The only time I play with people I don’t know is in tourneys and qualifiers, and we have to sign the cards anyway or take DQ.

> >

> > So I can see doing away with T scores once they implement attestation. But I’d like them to keep the T score computations all the same. It’s much easier to point out sandbaggers and helps in peer review.

> >

> > I imagine they are getting rid of .96/.93 simply because they are going 8/20. The differentials of scores 9 and 10 on my last 20 are usually 2 shots higher than my cap. Throwing those out will lower my cap much more than .96 will. But really, it’ll be a minor change in cap.

> >

> > My current cap is 6.1 with the .96 etc. added into the mix. Doing 8/20 with no .96, my cap falls to 5.9.

> >

> > Not a big difference and the formula is easier to explain to people. **I’ll miss getting a shot sometimes. Our white tees are a slope of 122, so I’m a 7 there with either 6.1 or 5.9.**

> >

> >

> I thought you'd be a 6 at an index of 5.9 and slope 122? Or is my math wrong?

>

 

Dang it. You’re right. I must have messed up using the app. It’s fine now. I’m not a 7 at 5.9 until 125. So 8/10 WILL affect my shots because all we ever play, net, is the white tees. Club championship is from the blue, but that’s scratch/gross only. Grrrr.

 

I’m really wondering how the help I messed up using the app. It’s so simple. :)

 

 

[Newby]

> @Augster said:

> So I can see doing away with T scores once they implement attestation. But I’d like them to keep the T score computations all the same. It’s much easier to point out sandbaggers and helps in peer review.

>

What makes a competition a 'Tournament' for T scores? As I am sure you know, virtually all CONGU and EGA scores are from formal competitions. The rest are pre-declared and attested supplementary or extra day scores.

The CONGU/EGA systems identify 'qualifying' competitions, non-qualifying (ie not played strictly to RoG) and attested games etc.

Who decides and how, which competitions are to be denoted as 'special'?

 

 

[Deceptively Short]

Attested or not is not the underlying major factor on the correlation between handicaps in different parts of the world - it is the basic nature of the format and play in rounds allowed.

In CONGU it will still be singles strokeplay played to strokeplay rules with everything holed out, mainly under competition conditions.

In the US, it will still be 4BB, singles, strokeplay and matchplay with incompleted holes and rounds and ‘most likely score’ assumptions.

Both these types of scores for handicap posting are perfectly natural for both sets of golfers.

To move one set to the other set’s posting basis is a massive change and has not been attempted, until there is consonance on this there will be no real WHS.

 

[Newby]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

 

> In CONGU it will still be singles strokeplay played to strokeplay rules with everything holed out, mainly under competition conditions.

> In the US, it will still be 4BB, singles, strokeplay and matchplay with incompleted holes and rounds and ‘most likely score’ assumptions.

CONGU are certainly looking into how matchplay and 4BBB scores for handicapping may be introduced into the GB&I club ethos. They've included 'maximum scores' into the CONGU regulations already (albeit with the max set to net double bogey or higher). Which is how CONGU handles incomplete holes in stableford now.

 

 

 

[Deceptively Short]

> @Newby said:

> > @"Deceptively Short" said:

>

> > In CONGU it will still be singles strokeplay played to strokeplay rules with everything holed out, mainly under competition conditions.

> > In the US, it will still be 4BB, singles, strokeplay and matchplay with incompleted holes and rounds and ‘most likely score’ assumptions.

> CONGU are certainly looking into how matchplay and 4BBB scores for handicapping may be introduced into the GB&I club ethos. They've included 'maximum scores' into the CONGU regulations already (albeit with the max set to net double bogey or higher). Which is how CONGU handles incomplete holes in stableford now.

>

>

>

There is a big difference between treating an incomplete hole as 0 in a Stableford competition and having to ascribe a ‘most likely’ score (2 points perhaps?) to that hole.

In CONGU, when a ball is not holed, you immediately record a score 2 shots below your net handicap for that hole. As a different basis on which to calculate an index this is pretty big.

 

[rogolf]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > @Newby said:

> > > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> >

> > > In CONGU it will still be singles strokeplay played to strokeplay rules with everything holed out, mainly under competition conditions.

> > > In the US, it will still be 4BB, singles, strokeplay and matchplay with incompleted holes and rounds and ‘most likely score’ assumptions.

> > CONGU are certainly looking into how matchplay and 4BBB scores for handicapping may be introduced into the GB&I club ethos. They've included 'maximum scores' into the CONGU regulations already (albeit with the max set to net double bogey or higher). Which is how CONGU handles incomplete holes in stableford now.

> >

> >

> >

> There is a big difference between treating an incomplete hole as 0 in a Stableford competition and having to ascribe a ‘most likely’ score (2 points perhaps?) to that hole.

> **In CONGU, when a ball is not holed, you immediately record a score 2 shots below your net handicap for that hole.** As a different basis on which to calculate an index this is pretty big.

>

Can you explain that further, maybe with an example? And what is the logic behind that?

 

[Deceptively Short]

As all CONGU ‘postable’ rounds can only be singles strokeplay, played to strokeplay rules, either medal or Stableford, then any hole where a ball is not holed either achieves an NR in a medal (which is converted to Stableford points for handicap purposes) or 0 points in a Stableford competition. 0 points equates to a net double bogey or worse.

[Deceptively Short]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> As all CONGU ‘postable’ rounds can only be singles strokeplay, played to strokeplay rules, either medal or Stableford, then any hole where a ball is not holed either achieves an NR in a medal (which is converted to Stableford points for handicap purposes) or 0 points in a Stableford competition. 0 points equates to a net double bogey or worse.

 

I am sure in the US if every time a hole is not completed, e.g. the ball is not holed, hole is conceded, or round not completed then GHIN demanded a net double bogey is posted handicap indexes would be meaningless.

[rogolf]

But, in CONGU, when a player fails to hole out, that score is still used for handicap purposes (based on 0 Stableford points)?

I still don't understand your point in this statement you made, **"you immediately record a score 2 shots below your net handicap for that hole."**

[Augster]

I’m with Rogolf here. It sounds like the Congu system is already just the like US system for posting incomplete holes. They just don’t allow match play and 4BB scores.

 

They’re going to go to a net DB max for posting. Much like our current ESC system. The system works very well currently. And we’re only talking about bad scores during a bad round that is likely going to get thrown out anyway with 8/20.

[davep043]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > As all CONGU ‘postable’ rounds can only be singles strokeplay, played to strokeplay rules, either medal or Stableford, then any hole where a ball is not holed either achieves an NR in a medal (which is converted to Stableford points for handicap purposes) or 0 points in a Stableford competition. 0 points equates to a net double bogey or worse.

>

> I am sure in the US if every time a hole is not completed, e.g. the ball is not holed, hole is conceded, or round not completed then GHIN demanded a net double bogey is posted handicap indexes would be meaningless.

 

I agree completely. The current method, posting "most likely score", is closer to being accurate, even if it IS subject to some interpretation, and is much preferable to a mandatory "Max Score". If we're right in assuming that match play and fourball scores will be counted in the US (or anywhere, really), some type of regulation will be required for these incomplete holes, beyond any provisions I've seen so far for the WHS.

[Deceptively Short]

> @rogolf said:

> But, in CONGU, when a player fails to hole out, that score is still used for handicap purposes (based on 0 Stableford points)?

> I still don't understand your point in this statement you made, **"you immediately record a score 2 shots below your net handicap for that hole."**

 

My apologies it should read 2 shots **higher** than your net handicap for that hole.

I am fairly certain that in the US net double bogey will not be used for holes where putts have been given, holes conceded in the fairway, holes where balls are picked up because already won (or lower score achieved) by playing partner or for those holes not played in an incomplete round.

[andrue]

> @rogolf said:

> But, in CONGU, when a player fails to hole out, that score is still used for handicap purposes (based on 0 Stableford points)?

> I still don't understand your point in this statement you made, **"you immediately record a score 2 shots below your net handicap for that hole."**

 

I think that must be a typo. As you posted if you don't hole out the hole is scored (for handicap purposes) as a Stableford 0 (double bogey) because that's the highest score that the CONGU handicap allows for any hole.

 

Also worth noting that although it can DQ you from a competition it can still result in a handicap reduction if you played the other 17 holes sufficiently well.

[nsxguy]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Augster said:

> > The PCC adjustment can only take posted scores into consideration. Where else would it get the data? I’m sure the algorithm will take the average posted scores and compare them to the handicaps of the players that played and look for a trend etc.

> >

> > But with 8/20? Seems like a silly addition to the computations. I doubt the PCC will change anyone’s cap, especially with daily updates, more than 0.1. If the weather was lousy for a week and you played every day and every day played lights out, then maybe your cap would change by more than that. But on REALLY lousy days most people don’t play unless it’s a tourney and they are forced to.

> >

> > Much ado about nothing.

> >

> > Any word on attested scores in the US? That’ll go over great. :)

>

> I think that the PCC might have an influence for areas which require year-round posting of scores. Its pretty common for guys in my area to have their handicap go up by a couple of strokes when they play (and post appropriately) through the winter, the PCC might smooth that trend some. I don't know for sure, just guessing.

> And the "white paper" that I linked doesn't say anything about attesting scores. It only indicates that the acceptability of "recreational scores" will be determined by the national or regional authority.

 

Thanks for that "White Paper" link. Pretty good even if it IS an ad for their software. LOL

 

Regarding this PCC though. IF it's totally computerized, i.e. the GHIN (or whatever) system is used to first calculate the differentials for the day and then, sometime after dark, calculates all the rounds at that course and then adjusts the differentials shot that day, I guess it'll work. This assumes ZERO effort on the course's part. Is this how it works ?

 

So, for example, we have an usually windy day and Player A, a "5", has a very good day and plays to his 'cap. His differential for that day (pre-adjustment) is 5.0. However, since it was a very windy day he's the only one to shoot anywhere near his 'cap and the average for all other players is 5 shot over their differential.

 

And Player A's differential "can be to reduce the differential 1, 2 or 3 strokes".

 

Couple of questions. Any idea of the actual calculation for the reduction ? If not, how would Player A resolve his handicap if he commonly checked the 8 of last 20 ? Any idea if the new software would indicate same somehow ?

 

 

[nsxguy]

> @Augster said:

> The USGA already made the HUGE leap (it seems) of not allowing scores when you play by yourself. Many still put those scores in, because they are being “truthful” and want “an accurate handicap”. Whatever. They are vanity capping themselves, which is fine with everyone but who they get partnered with in events.

>

> That was the big leap and the USGA already made it and kept it in the rules despite all the anger and rage directed towards them.

>

> The smaller step will be attestation. Will it really be that hard to get one guy you are playing with to attest your score? I’m nearly always playing with one of my friends. Have them sign the card at the end will take 2 seconds and won’t affect my scores in the least. My cap will be the same. The only time I play with people I don’t know is in tourneys and qualifiers, and we have to sign the cards anyway or take DQ.

>

> **So I can see doing away with T scores once they implement attestation. But I’d like them to keep the T score computations all the same. It’s much easier to point out sandbaggers and helps in peer review.**

 

Looks like T scores will be "replaced by this (from the white Paper dave linked to)

 

"_Exceptionally low scores are defined as differentials that are seven or more strokes below a

player’s handicap index. In these cases, the handicap index will immediately be reduced by

one or two strokes. This reduction can occur repeatedly if more exceptionally low scores are

posted relative to the new handicap index_."

 

They don't post the formula for adjusting (1 or 2 strokes ?) and I believe the current T score adjustment doesn't start nearly that low (7 or more under HI). They also don't indicate when those scores get disregarded, i.e. "fall off" the calculated handicap.

 

[Halebopp]

> @nsxguy said:

>

> Thanks for that "White Paper" link. Pretty good even if it IS an ad for their software. LOL

>

> Regarding this PCC though. IF it's totally computerized, i.e. the GHIN (or whatever) system is used to first calculate the differentials for the day and then, sometime after dark, calculates all the rounds at that course and then adjusts the differentials shot that day, I guess it'll work. This assumes ZERO effort on the course's part. Is this how it works ?

>

> So, for example, we have an usually windy day and Player A, a "5", has a very good day and plays to his 'cap. His differential for that day (pre-adjustment) is 5.0. However, since it was a very windy day he's the only one to shoot anywhere near his 'cap and the average for all other players is 5 shot over their differential.

>

> And Player A's differential "can be to reduce the differential 1, 2 or 3 strokes".

>

> Couple of questions. Any idea of the actual calculation for the reduction ? If not, how would Player A resolve his handicap if he commonly checked the 8 of last 20 ? Any idea if the new software would indicate same somehow ?

>

>

 

At least in the EGA system the CBA (Computed Buffer Adjustment) for each competition is done automatically by the computer once all the scores have been entered into the system. You get the information right after the competition ended, with the new system you just need to wait until midnight or the next morning. I'm not sure what you mean by player checking the 8 out of last 20? The CBA adjustment is shown for all the competition rounds in the system and I can only assume the new daily adjustment will be shown in the system for every single round.

 

You can find the maths for the CBA adjustment here: http://www.ega-golf.ch/sites/default/files/cba_appendix.pdf

[davep043]

> @nsxguy said:

 

> Regarding this PCC though. IF it's totally computerized, i.e. the GHIN (or whatever) system is used to first calculate the differentials for the day and then, sometime after dark, calculates all the rounds at that course and then adjusts the differentials shot that day, I guess it'll work. This assumes ZERO effort on the course's part. Is this how it works ?

>

> So, for example, we have an usually windy day and Player A, a "5", has a very good day and plays to his 'cap. His differential for that day (pre-adjustment) is 5.0. However, since it was a very windy day he's the only one to shoot anywhere near his 'cap and the average for all other players is 5 shot over their differential.

>

> And Player A's differential "can be to reduce the differential 1, 2 or 3 strokes".

>

> Couple of questions. Any idea of the actual calculation for the reduction ? If not, how would Player A resolve his handicap if he commonly checked the 8 of last 20 ? Any idea if the new software would indicate same somehow ?

>

>

 

Yeah, I knew it was for marketing their software package, but it was still a reasonably complete summary.

As far as I know, they haven't released the details of the PCC calculation. To me, it would have to be related to both the scoring that day, and to the number of scores recorded. I think you have the idea right, if the bulk of the field is significantly over their normal, everyone's differentials would be reduced. To provide some clarity, I would hope that the computational services would include each day's PCC factor in the data tables we can access. For our friends under CONGU, where a CSS score is used similar to the PCC idea, how is that information presented?

> @nsxguy said:

 

> Looks like T scores will be "replaced by this (from the white Paper dave linked to)

>

> "_Exceptionally low scores are defined as differentials that are seven or more strokes below a

> player’s handicap index. In these cases, the handicap index will immediately be reduced by

> one or two strokes. This reduction can occur repeatedly if more exceptionally low scores are

> posted relative to the new handicap index_."

>

> They don't post the formula for adjusting (1 or 2 strokes ?) and I believe the current T score adjustment doesn't start nearly that low (7 or more under HI). They also don't indicate when those scores get disregarded, i.e. "fall off" the calculated handicap.

>

 

Right now, the T score adjustment looks at your best two T scores (actually differentials, but scores is easier to type) from the past year. If the second lowest is more than 3 strokes below your Handicap Index, you move to step two. Step two compares the average of your two best to your HI, and downward adjustments can start if that difference is as little as 4 strokes. So I agree, the way the WHS is described, "exceptional scores" have to be MUCH lower to trigger an adjustment than under the current USGA system. On the other hand, a single score can trigger an adjustment, where the current USGA system you need 2 unusually good scores.

There are still lots of areas in which we haven't seen the details, which makes me wonder if there are ongoing discussions over exactly how these issues will be addressed.

[Newby]

> @davep043 said:

> There are still lots of areas in which we haven't seen the details, which makes me wonder if there are ongoing discussions over exactly how these issues will be addressed.

That is my understanding. They are still tuning some of the details in addition to planning the launch material to 'persuade' people to 'accept' the changes that will be coming to different golfing cultures.

I am at an England Golf/CONGU seminar/workshop for national handicap advisors in a couple of weeks so provided I'm not sworn to secrecy, I'll report back with anything interesting. But in the meantime England Golf are indicating a late 2020 implementation here. I think Australia are almost ready to go now.