World Handicap system after more than a year

[AntLockyer]

4 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Normal, or should I say, average, course conditions, including wind, are taken into consideration in the rating process.

thanks

[Superbrit]

Ive noticed in the UK that comps are very rarely won by single digits anymore, seems to always be +20's who have had a good day, it seems to me higher handicapers HC has gone up even more and Lower handicapers HC has gone lower, My father has always been between 18 and 21, he's now 26, ive always been a single, anything between 7 and 9, never really changed much, now im a 6, for me to have a chance to win now im going to have to shoot par, unless its a really bad weather day, that seems to even it up a bit

[Halebopp]

49 minutes ago, Superbrit said:

Ive noticed in the UK that comps are very rarely won by single digits anymore, seems to always be +20's who have had a good day, it seems to me higher handicapers HC has gone up even more and Lower handicapers HC has gone lower, My father has always been between 18 and 21, he's now 26, ive always been a single, anything between 7 and 9, never really changed much, now im a 6, for me to have a chance to win now im going to have to shoot par, unless its a really bad weather day, that seems to even it up a bit

 

I find it odd that single-digit handicaps would be competing against 20+ handicaps. Weekly club competitions are flighted in Finland 0-10, 11-20, 21-36, or something similar. Possibly even with only two flights. The first flight plays net stroke play and the rest play Stableford.

[nsxguy]

6 hours ago, Superbrit said:

Ive noticed in the UK that comps are very rarely won by single digits anymore, seems to always be +20's who have had a good day, it seems to me higher handicapers HC has gone up even more and Lower handicapers HC has gone lower, My father has always been between 18 and 21, he's now 26, ive always been a single, anything between 7 and 9, never really changed much, now im a 6, for me to have a chance to win now im going to have to shoot par, unless its a really bad weather day, that seems to even it up a bit

 

The higher the handicap the more likely an unusually low net round.

 

So the higher the proportion of higher handicappers to lower ones in the field the more likely a higher handicapper will win a net event.

 

As Hale mentioned above, that's a good reason to have flights in larger tournaments.

 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by nsxguy

[Newby]

On 12/10/2021 at 12:30 PM, Superbrit said:

Ive noticed in the UK that comps are very rarely won by single digits anymore, seems to always be +20's who have had a good day, it seems to me higher handicapers HC has gone up even more and Lower handicapers HC has gone lower, My father has always been between 18 and 21, he's now 26, ive always been a single, anything between 7 and 9, never really changed much, now im a 6, for me to have a chance to win now im going to have to shoot par, unless its a really bad weather day, that seems to even it up a bit

I suspect you are commenting on the posts in various forums where the complaints are appearing. I am told an analysis of the WHS returns does not support that.

 

PS are you talking about your and your father's Index or Course Handicap. Remember WHS now includes the Slope factor in the UK

[Shilgy]

On 11/25/2021 at 1:22 PM, Loki said:

I have seen one for a VERY windy day.  The adjustments are based on scores posted for the course THAT day. So if you play adverse conditions and not enough people post scores to generate a higher than expected score, nothing happens. I thought it would be the pro looking out the window and saying these are not normal conditions and we need to adjust the scores. Not even close.

 

Worthless. 

So you believe it would be more accurate based on having a guy look out the window than basing it on the actual scores being shot that day versus the norm? 🤔

[Loki]

Like I said, if there aren't enough scores posted same day of play, then yes, it would be more accurate.

 

I don't disagree with you, Shilgy.

[deadsolid...shank]

Outside of tournaments, I would guess that most days when there are fairly severe abnormal or adverse conditions, most people probably choose to not play. 
 

So there probably aren’t enough scores posted those days. I would think a judgement call by someone qualified might not be a terrible idea. 
 

I know there have been several times where my group might be the only ones out there (very windy days ).  We call ourselves diehards, our wives call us idiots!!  But scores are substantially higher. 

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, deadsolid...shank said:

Outside of tournaments, I would guess that most days when there are fairly severe abnormal or adverse conditions, most people probably choose to not play. 
 

So there probably aren’t enough scores posted those days. I would think a judgement call by someone qualified might not be a terrible idea. 
 

I know there have been several times where my group might be the only ones out there (very windy days ).  We call ourselves diehards, our wives call us idiots!!  But scores are substantially higher. 

 

(I guess) it's a shame the OP chose to cut and run instead of following up but anyway,,,,,,,,,,, I have 2 +1 days in 2021 (no + >1 and no - scores).

 

One of them is "current" but not included in my 8 best of the last 20.

 

The other one was way back in May and might have been in my 8 best but it's too long ago and I don't know what my 20 scores were at the time.

 

But even if the earlier one was included in my 8 best it made a difference of .125 in my index.

 

Given the rarity(?) of such adjustments I think we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

 

ESPECIALLY the + days. As you yourself bring up, if "everybody" is scoring so high that day the likelihood of that score getting into your 8 best is pretty small,,,,,,,,, so,,,,,,, not even a .125 adjustment in your cap.

[deadsolid...shank]

19 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

(I guess) it's a shame the OP chose to cut and run instead of following up but anyway,,,,,,,,,,, I have 2 +1 days in 2021 (no + >1 and no - scores).

 

One of them is "current" but not included in my 8 best of the last 20.

 

The other one was way back in May and might have been in my 8 best but it's too long ago and I don't know what my 20 scores were at the time.

 

But even if the earlier one was included in my 8 best it made a difference of .125 in my index.

 

Given the rarity(?) of such adjustments I think we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.

 

ESPECIALLY the + days. As you yourself bring up, if "everybody" is scoring so high that day the likelihood of that score getting into your 8 best is pretty small,,,,,,,,, so,,,,,,, not even a .125 adjustment in your cap.

Very true. 
 

I’ve never had an adjustment so it’s become more of a curiosity thing for me. To see if it ever happens, and if so, what kind of conditions it takes to make it happen. 

[milesgiles]

could someone explain the use of slope index?

 

why not just raise or lower the ss for a course? ie a 120 slope par 72, call it ss 71, a 135 slope par 72 call it ss 73. 

 

*i know the ss reflects the difficulty to,par anyway, but clearly not enough if you have to add in a slope index as well

 

what am I missing?

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, milesgiles said:

could someone explain the use of slope index?

 

why not just raise or lower the ss for a course? ie a 120 slope par 72, call it ss 71, a 135 slope par 72 call it ss 73. 

 

*i know the ss reflects the difficulty to,par anyway, but clearly not enough if you have to add in a slope index as well

 

what am I missing?

Simplest terms is that the course rating is for scratch players and the slope is how much more difficult it is for bogey golfers.  Some hazards and features of the terrain make it very difficult for higher handicaps and mean nothing to the better player.

An example would be a 150 forced carry over a pond. The better player does not even give the pond a glance. Why would the course rating go up instead of the slope feature?

[Halebopp]

1 hour ago, milesgiles said:

could someone explain the use of slope index?

 

why not just raise or lower the ss for a course? ie a 120 slope par 72, call it ss 71, a 135 slope par 72 call it ss 73. 

 

*i know the ss reflects the difficulty to,par anyway, but clearly not enough if you have to add in a slope index as well

 

what am I missing?

 

While the Course Rating is the target score for a scratch golfer, there is a Bogey Rating representing the target score for bogey golfers (handicap around 20). It's just not shown anywhere because it's a rather useless piece of information in practice. The Slope Rating is derived from the difference between those two ratings. Slope (or more precisely Slope/113) is literally the slope of the line passing through Course Rating and Bogey Rating points. Slope makes it easier to calculate the target score for players of all handicap indices.

 

So if a Course Rating is 71.9, and the Slope Rating is 128 and you're a 12.5 handicap, your target score would be 85. (Slope/113 * HCP + Course Rating, or: 128/113 * 12.5 + 71.9).

 

You can find all the data, including Bogey Ratings here: https://ncrdb.usga.org/

[Newby]

3 hours ago, milesgiles said:

could someone explain the use of slope index?

 

why not just raise or lower the ss for a course? ie a 120 slope par 72, call it ss 71, a 135 slope par 72 call it ss 73. 

 

*i know the ss reflects the difficulty to,par anyway, but clearly not enough if you have to add in a slope index as well

 

what am I missing?

1) You have missed the fact that ss (actually SSS) has been replaced by CR (Course Rating) in the CONGU area. Similar but not the same. 

2) ss (or CR) does not relate the difficulty to par. Par is simply the sum of the par (arbitrary length) of the individual holes. CR includes rating for obstacles (eg bunkers, ponds etc) as well as length.

[vandyfan]

PCC is an absolute joke, at least in my experience. I play public golf courses so I would just assume few people carry active hdcps and thus there is not enough data. I played in 15-30 mph sustained winds (which is rather strong for my neck of the woods), light rain last week and tees farther back than normal and numerous greens with the hardest pin positions. No PCC adjustment. Ditto for last month in similar conditions. I played 50+ rounds this year and had zero PCC adjustments which is fine, I guess, because I don't want my HDCP any lower than it has to be. 

[ThinkingPlus]

17 minutes ago, blackbdmillsaps said:

PCC is an absolute joke, at least in my experience. I play public golf courses so I would just assume few people carry active hdcps and thus there is not enough data. I played in 15-30 mph sustained winds (which is rather strong for my neck of the woods), light rain last week and tees farther back than normal and numerous greens with the hardest pin positions. No PCC adjustment. Ditto for last month in similar conditions. I played 50+ rounds this year and had zero PCC adjustments which is fine, I guess, because I don't want my HDCP any lower than it has to be. 

It requires timely posting for it to work.  If the folks that play your course don’t have caps or don't post promptly,  then you will not see PCC adjustments.  I think it only takes 8 scores to qualify for a PCC adjustment although more scores increase the likelihood of an adjustment.

[Golferpaul]

3 hours ago, blackbdmillsaps said:

PCC is an absolute joke, at least in my experience. 

I don't think it's a joke.  I've had several PCC adjustments.  I suspect the problem is that many people do not post on the same day they play.  If so, their scores do not count toward the PCC.

 

It would be interesting to find out what percent of postings are done on the day they played.

[DrDon]

On 12/16/2021 at 1:40 PM, blackbdmillsaps said:

I played 50+ rounds this year and had zero PCC adjustments

 

I have over 200 rounds posted for the past 2 years in all 4 seasons.   All rounds were at a private country club where most golfers post the same day as playing.

 

I can only remember 2 or 3 PCC adjustments out of 200 rounds. 

[Imp]

18 hours ago, DrDon said:

 

I have over 200 rounds posted for the past 2 years in all 4 seasons.   All rounds were at a private country club where most golfers post the same day as playing.

 

I can only remember 2 or 3 PCC adjustments out of 200 rounds. 

2020: 64 rounds. 1 Adjusted (-0.5).
2021: 57 rounds. 0 Adjusted.

And I play in very different conditions, not a fair weather only golfer. 
 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Imp

[Newby]

https://www.thegolfbusiness.co.uk/2022/01/playing-conditions-could-be-taken-more-into-account-for-handicaps/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=playing-conditions-could-be-taken-more-into-account-for-handicaps

[davep043]

4 hours ago, Newby said:

https://www.thegolfbusiness.co.uk/2022/01/playing-conditions-could-be-taken-more-into-account-for-handicaps/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=playing-conditions-could-be-taken-more-into-account-for-handicaps

I'd say this seems to be the single most common concern about the WHS from people around the world, they seem to consistently claim that the PCC is being applied much less than they believe it should be.  I know when I attended a training session with the state association back in 2020, they had estimated that the PCC would apply on the order of 10% of all rounds, and from my experience, and other reports, it seems to be well below that.  Perhaps this is one of the reasons the RBs didn't release the details of the PCC calculation originally.  They can adjust the calculation now if they think its appropriate, and none of us will ever realize it .  Or perhaps they'll let us know its been adjusted, while still keeping the exact calculations private.

[david.c.w]

On 11/29/2021 at 4:33 PM, MisterT said:

I have had 6 PCC adjustments in about 80 rounds this year - five were -1 and one was +2.

 

I am also in Atlanta and had 5 PCC's in 89 rounds.  4 were -1 and one was +1.  Interesting that we were about the same, and probably on different days at different courses.

[Nels55]

My course does not drain real well and during the rainy season in the winter and early spring the mud and thick rough is probably a difference of 3 or 4 shots per round for a 10 handicapper.  Based on data for the last 10 years my index is typically 2 strokes higher in April then it is in August.  Seems like seasonal adjustment might be something for the data crunchers to look at?

[Superbrit]

29 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

My course does not drain real well and during the rainy season in the winter and early spring the mud and thick rough is probably a difference of 3 or 4 shots per round for a 10 handicapper.  Based on data for the last 10 years my index is typically 2 strokes higher in April then it is in August.  Seems like seasonal adjustment might be something for the data crunchers to look at?

Yeah but thats why you have the lift, clean & place rule, also courses are shorter so balances itself out

Edited January 6, 2022 by Superbrit

[ThinkingPlus]

6 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

My course does not drain real well and during the rainy season in the winter and early spring the mud and thick rough is probably a difference of 3 or 4 shots per round for a 10 handicapper.  Based on data for the last 10 years my index is typically 2 strokes higher in April then it is in August.  Seems like seasonal adjustment might be something for the data crunchers to look at?

It's already taken into account assuming everyone else has the same difficulties and posts scores in a timely fashion.

[jvincent]

58 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I'd say this seems to be the single most common concern about the WHS from people around the world, they seem to consistently claim that the PCC is being applied much less than they believe it should be.  I know when I attended a training session with the state association back in 2020, they had estimated that the PCC would apply on the order of 10% of all rounds, and from my experience, and other reports, it seems to be well below that.  Perhaps this is one of the reasons the RBs didn't release the details of the PCC calculation originally.  They can adjust the calculation now if they think its appropriate, and none of us will ever realize it .  Or perhaps they'll let us know its been adjusted, while still keeping the exact calculations private.

 

While in the grander scheme of things it really doesn't matter, I still have a fundamental objection to the secrecy around the PCC calculation.

 

Yes, if it was openly available people would b**** and moan about how it's unfair, bad math, etc.

 

But is that any worse than people bitching and moaning about it being protected by some kind of double-secret probation cone of silence?

[Nels55]

18 minutes ago, Superbrit said:

Yeah but thats why you have the lift, clean & replace rule, also courses are shorter so balances itself out

 

We were actually playing 'winter rules' thru the green during those years that I mentioned the data for which basically meant that I could usually find a nice stalk to sit my ball on in the rough and hit any club that I wanted.  We have changed to USGA recommendations for lift clean and place in closely mowed areas only this year which is definitely going to raise scores.  It will often be the difference between going for the green and just trying to wedge out to the fairway.  The rough is not watered in the summer so it basically disappears but is a broad leaf cabbage in the winter and spring that is difficult to hit out of if you can find your ball in it.  Anyway the course plays way longer in the winter and it does not 'balance itself out'.  And no I am not complaining as it is what it is and I rather enjoy the challenge LOL.   

[sui generis]

40 minutes ago, jvincent said:

I still have a fundamental objection to the secrecy around the PCC calculation.

 

As has been noted many, many times here. The calculations are proprietary. Just as you haven't the right to know what's in your Coca-Cola or the KFC's 12 herbs and spices, et al.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I've been HUGE critic of the WHS, simply because I believe it's a solution looking for a problem.  I still believe it was completely unnecessary. 

 

But with that said, I've also seen some significant upside.  From an IT perspective the GHIN application, data/information and security is significantly better.  

 

What I don't like is the replacement of ESC with NDB. I knew this would be a problem because I knew people wouldn't do it right.  I still see people doing it wrong all the time and this will continue to be a problem. 

[jvincent]

9 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

As has been noted many, many times here. The calculations are proprietary. Just as you haven't the right to know what's in your Coca-Cola or the KFC's 12 herbs and spices, et al.

 

I'm a paying member of a golf association that uses the WHS. Why shouldn't I have access to the PCC algorithm? 

 

The "proprietary" arguement was used by the USGA for many years for the handicap index calculation formula. It was a load of BS then just like it is now. At least then the formula was public.

 

If the PCC algorithm was public then at least people could criticize specific points of it. Now all we can do is say is "sucks" without providing specific criticism.