World Handicap system after more than a year

[jvincent]

30 minutes ago, Hickory4ever said:

I am a member of the Golf Historical Society of Canada and this was an initiative with Golf Canada, I believe we are the first country to have that available. The Society of Hickory Golfers in the states maintains their own system for their members. 

 

If your interested, my modern index is usually around 10.5, hickory around 14.5. The difference is mostly influenced by the shorter tees used because they don’t go as far, especially in the woods. 

 

 

 

Cool. This is the first I've heard of this.

[Hickory4ever]

1 minute ago, jvincent said:

 

Cool. This is the first I've heard of this.

The initiative started last year. The Golf Historical Society of Canada is considered a virtual club by Golf Canada and The GAO. 

[Hickory4ever]

1 hour ago, Nels55 said:

No worries!  LOL I used to always post every score and one winter my index went up 3 or 4 strokes playing in the mud and bad weather and I got called out by the course owner for having too high of a handicap.  Apparently I was flagged by the GHIN system at that time I am not sure.  It was rather embarrassing and is not going to happen again.  I am pretty sure that other members of the men's club did not post there scores correctly that winter because I ended up winning the match play tournament in the spring while playing rather poorly.  I won 4 rounds without coming close to shooting net par.  I went one extra hole in the final round against a guy who's handicap also went up 4 strokes during the winter.  LOL I won because even though I was hitting it all over the place I was making everything on the greens.  Not a bad match strategy if you can pull it off.  Of course I had more then a little bit of good luck on my side during those rounds also.  

Just reread your post. In my neck of the woods (the Great White North) our season for handicap scoring is April 15 to October 31. Since I play well into the bad weather, it does not affect my index until next April. 

[Bye]

I must say the new system is still strange to me. 
 

With the last 2 scores submitted my index has gone down when I played above my handicap, and then yesterday it stayed the same when I scored below it. 
 

We have a club competition next week, my next score dropping of form the 20 is a non counting card. 
 

Having been on the CONGU system for so long I am finding it difficult mentally. With CONGU, when you played well you got cut, badly you went up (only 0.1). But before you play the potential outcome was fairly clear.
 

I find I’m ending up looking what my worse score is. Then rather than thinking I need to shoot below my handicap to get cut, I might be looking at a score 5,6 or 7 above to beat. It seems to put a strange kind of pressure on you.

 

Yesterday was easier in a way as I knew a good score was dropping off, the goal was much clearer. 
 

Probably over the next year or 2 it will become clearer and CONGU will be long forgotten to those who knew it so well.

 

 

[Newby]

Don't concern yourself with the potential effect on your handicap. Play as well as you can and your handicap will be what it should be.

[Bye]

46 minutes ago, Newby said:

Don't concern yourself with the potential effect on your handicap. Play as well as you can and your handicap will be what it should be.

Easier said than done sometimes. It’s like when you have 2 putts to win a hole, the mind can do strange things sometimes.

 

I found posting quite therapeutic, having thought about it for a while the plan is to aim to beat the lowest score of the 20 from now on. Might seem crazy to some.

Just going out to play and seeing what happens doesn’t really work for me, I like to have a score to aim for before starting. 

 

[Newby]

15 minutes ago, Bye said:

Easier said than done sometimes. It’s like when you have 2 putts to win a hole, the mind can do strange things sometimes.

 

I found posting quite therapeutic, having thought about it for a while the plan is to aim to beat the lowest score of the 20 from now on. Might seem crazy to some.

Just going out to play and seeing what happens doesn’t really work for me, I like to have a score to aim for before starting. 

 

My aim (not often realised these days) is to beat net CR.

[Bye]

21 minutes ago, Newby said:

My aim (not often realised these days) is to beat net CR.

It’s definitely good to have a clear goal for each round. The new system is so different to CONGU, it’s taken a bit of time to adjust to.

[ThinkingPlus]

27 minutes ago, Newby said:

My aim (not often realised these days) is to beat net CR.

That's an excellent goal.  Pretty much the same here.  Always looking to shoot at or under par or under CR for harder courses.  Any score that gets me near zero or negative differentials is a good day.

[vandyfan]

Is there a competition multiplier still in the calculation? I failed spectacularly in a competition this past weekend (I shot an 86 for a differential of about 14!) and my cap didn't move an inch. I know it is the best 8 of 20 but for some reason I recall competition rounds weighing differently. Maybe that was the old system? In any event....tournament golf huh.

[Newby]

1 minute ago, blackbdmillsaps said:

Is there a competition multiplier still in the calculation? I failed spectacularly in a competition this past weekend (I shot an 86 for a differential of about 14!) and my cap didn't move an inch. I know it is the best 8 of 20 but for some reason I recall competition rounds weighing differently. Maybe that was the old system? In any event....tournament golf huh.

No difference between Competition and Casual/General play.

[davep043]

7 minutes ago, blackbdmillsaps said:

Is there a competition multiplier still in the calculation? I failed spectacularly in a competition this past weekend (I shot an 86 for a differential of about 14!) and my cap didn't move an inch. I know it is the best 8 of 20 but for some reason I recall competition rounds weighing differently. Maybe that was the old system? In any event....tournament golf huh.

Under the previous USGA system, your best Tournament scores (differentials, really, but scores is easier to type) were compared against your handicap.  If they were excessively low, your handicap would be adjusted lower.  That calculation is not in the WHS, instead each score is evaluated, and if excessively low (Diff. more than 7.0 below your HI) your Handicap Index is adjusted lower.  

[Nels55]

I had a PCC of +3 today which was a bit surprising as it was a really nice day though a little windy.  I think it may have been related to the crazy pin positions.  LOL there were several where a 15 footer could easily end up back at your feet if it missed the hole.  There were quite a few at the very top back of the green on an upslope LOL not the easiest spots to putt to!  I kind of enjoyed it... Probably an indication of something personality wise not sure what though...

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

I had a PCC of +3 today which was a bit surprising as it was a really nice day though a little windy.  I think it may have been related to the crazy pin positions.  LOL there were several where a 15 footer could easily end up back at your feet if it missed the hole.  There were quite a few at the very top back of the green on an upslope LOL not the easiest spots to putt to!  I kind of enjoyed it... Probably an indication of something personality wise not sure what though...

 

This sort of thing should be taken into account by the greenskeeper(s).

 

With the new USGA publications/pages, etc., I can't seem to find it, but I seem to remember awhile back some verbiage something like "A skilled golfer should be able to stop the ball within 3 feet of the hole when putting from ABOVE the hole".

 

 

[rogolf]

13 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

This sort of thing should be taken into account by the greenskeeper(s).

 

With the new USGA publications/pages, etc., I can't seem to find it, but I seem to remember awhile back some verbiage something like "A skilled golfer should be able to stop the ball within 3 feet of the hole when putting from ABOVE the hole".

 

 

When I'm setting holes for competitions, my guideline is that a player should be able to stop the ball at the hole when putting from above the hole or from the side(s) of the hole.  I confirm this by putting to the prospective hole location (it's the best putting practice that I get all year!)

[Nels55]

10 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

This sort of thing should be taken into account by the greenskeeper(s).

 

With the new USGA publications/pages, etc., I can't seem to find it, but I seem to remember awhile back some verbiage something like "A skilled golfer should be able to stop the ball within 3 feet of the hole when putting from ABOVE the hole".

 

 

The greens were put in back in the 60s when the speeds were not quite so fast.  I think that it would be possible to follow the guidelines on all of the greens but difficult on some.  LOL on the 8th green there is about a 12' by 12' area in the front right front where the pin can be located and the rest of the green is useless.  Anything to the left of the good area and the ball rolls off the green while anything above that area the ball often will not stay near the hole.   Back left is hilarious and is only used for the impossible pins tournament or when they can't mow at normal height because of the rain.  Today the pin on 8 was towards the top on the right and it was tough to get a ball to stay up there.  I asked my friend who put the pins out why he put it up there and he said that he could not keep putting the pin in the usual area because of the traffic.  LOL I don't think that it makes much difference traffic wise as everybody's ball ends up down there in the good area at some point anyway.  Ah well I love the course and the tough pins are part of the fun! 

[rogolf]

20 minutes ago, Nels55 said:

The greens were put in back in the 60s when the speeds were not quite so fast.  I think that it would be possible to follow the guidelines on all of the greens but difficult on some.  LOL on the 8th green there is about a 12' by 12' area in the front right front where the pin can be located and the rest of the green is useless.  Anything to the left of the good area and the ball rolls off the green while anything above that area the ball often will not stay near the hole.   Back left is hilarious and is only used for the impossible pins tournament or when they can't mow at normal height because of the rain.  Today the pin on 8 was towards the top on the right and it was tough to get a ball to stay up there.  I asked my friend who put the pins out why he put it up there and he said that he could not keep putting the pin in the usual area because of the traffic.  LOL I don't think that it makes much difference traffic wise as everybody's ball ends up down there in the good area at some point anyway.  Ah well I love the course and the tough pins are part of the fun! 

Recognize that when I'm setting hole locations, it's only for four round (five if practice round included), not every day like the local staff need to do.  However, there have been some poorly designed greens where all four hole locations that I use are on the same portion of the green, sometimes too close to each other.  I've also asked the course staff to change the mowing/rolling pattern for specific greens to slow them down and allow a few more hole location options.  I recall one very large green (maybe 35 paces deep by 20 paces wide) where all four hole locations were in the front right of the green (about 6 paces from the front and 5 paces from the right), maybe four feet from each other, and that was after we decided to single cut and not roll that green!

[nsxguy]

10 hours ago, Nels55 said:

The greens were put in back in the 60s when the speeds were not quite so fast.  I think that it would be possible to follow the guidelines on all of the greens but difficult on some.  LOL on the 8th green there is about a 12' by 12' area in the front right front where the pin can be located and the rest of the green is useless.  Anything to the left of the good area and the ball rolls off the green while anything above that area the ball often will not stay near the hole.   Back left is hilarious and is only used for the impossible pins tournament or when they can't mow at normal height because of the rain.  Today the pin on 8 was towards the top on the right and it was tough to get a ball to stay up there.  I asked my friend who put the pins out why he put it up there and he said that he could not keep putting the pin in the usual area because of the traffic.  LOL I don't think that it makes much difference traffic wise as everybody's ball ends up down there in the good area at some point anyway.  Ah well I love the course and the tough pins are part of the fun! 

 

There's a hole like that at my favorite golf course (Grossinger's in the Catskills of New York).

 

Huge green set into a moutainside. The entire front half of the green is useless and the pin is never there. Green slopes severely back towards the fairway AND to the left.

 

Back right is a small shelf, maybe a bit larger than 15X15 feet that the pin is almost never on. Pin is usually back left, about the only place you can hit an iron and still have a putt at birdie.

 

Too short and the balls rolling way back to the fairway. Too long and you're chipping downhill to the pin, AND the fairway if you're too frisky. Left is a bunker. Pin high and right is the shot to hit as the ball will trickle down towards the hole.

 

Effectively the green is about 30' wide and 20' deep but miss that area and you're probably making bogey; at least.

 

Sheesh.

[Newby]

On 11/25/2021 at 5:06 PM, phil75070 said:

Is anyone see Playing Conditions adjustments? I got a +1 back on January 4th and none since. I personally think they should do away with it anyway if it is that rare. Plus, the fact that it is based on other people's scores and not the conditions one is playing under is something I don't like.

I'm wondering if it shouldn't be relabelled PCC (Player's Consistency Comparison).

It simply cannot measure course or weather conditions directly. Obviously I don't know the detailed algorithm but it seems that it examines the past performance of a player (or a cohort of a similar handicap group - say Index 17.5 - 18.4 or Index 15.0 - 20.0). It then determines the expected/probable (?) normal range of scores for that player or cohort and calculate the numbers outside that range.

Nothing to do with conditions per se.

[Mr. Bean]

13 minutes ago, Newby said:

I'm wondering if it shouldn't be relabelled PCC (Player's Consistency Comparison).

It simply cannot measure course or weather conditions directly. Obviously I don't know the detailed algorithm but it seems that it examines the past performance of a player (or a cohort of a similar handicap group - say Index 17.5 - 18.4 or Index 15.0 - 20.0). It then determines the expected/probable (?) normal range of scores for that player or cohort and calculate the numbers outside that range.

Nothing to do with conditions per se.

 

The way I see it, conditions are considered to be, if not the only factor at least the most influencing factor on the performance of the entire cohort, so PCC has everything to do with them. After all, the WHS is based on the assumption that all players have their handicap indexes on the correct level.

[ThinkingPlus]

45 minutes ago, Newby said:

I'm wondering if it shouldn't be relabelled PCC (Player's Consistency Comparison).

It simply cannot measure course or weather conditions directly. Obviously I don't know the detailed algorithm but it seems that it examines the past performance of a player (or a cohort of a similar handicap group - say Index 17.5 - 18.4 or Index 15.0 - 20.0). It then determines the expected/probable (?) normal range of scores for that player or cohort and calculate the numbers outside that range.

Nothing to do with conditions per se.

You have it pretty much correct.  Under nominal (average) conditions each golfer has an expected score as a function of their handicap index, the course rating, and the course slope.  If enough golfers shoot much worse or much better than their expected score at a given course then a PCC adjustment would be made.  The "why" that caused the scoring to be much better or much worse is largely irrelevant although it seems to trigger the curious.

[Golferpaul]

On 1/6/2022 at 8:52 AM, jvincent said:

 

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?

Totally agree.  Transparency is always a good thing when it comes to governments and ruling bodies.

[Golferpaul]

8 hours ago, Newby said:

I'm wondering if it shouldn't be relabelled PCC (Player's Consistency Comparison).

It simply cannot measure course or weather conditions directly. Obviously I don't know the detailed algorithm but it seems that it examines the past performance of a player (or a cohort of a similar handicap group - say Index 17.5 - 18.4 or Index 15.0 - 20.0). It then determines the expected/probable (?) normal range of scores for that player or cohort and calculate the numbers outside that range.

Nothing to do with conditions per se.

Scores are a pretty good proxy for difficulty of conditions.

[Golferpaul]

I just had two +1 PCCs in the last week at Streamsong Red and Reunion Nicklaus. 

[sui generis]

30 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Totally agree.  Transparency is always a good thing when it comes to governments and ruling bodies.

 

In case you haven't followed along, PCC calculations are proprietary information. You only pay to use it, your $35 doesn't entitle you to know the formula. Kinda like when you buy KFC but don't get to know the business owner's secret "12 herbs and spices."

[Golferpaul]

10 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

In case you haven't followed along, PCC calculations are proprietary information. You only pay to use it, your $35 doesn't entitle you to know the formula. Kinda like when you buy KFC but don't get to know the business owner's secret "12 herbs and spices."

I understand that.  But I'm saying just because it's proprietary doesn't mean it should be hidden.  Yes, they have the right to hide their formula, but they have no good reason to hide it.

 

Your analogy is flawed.  KFC has competitors and therefore a good reason for secret recipes.  The USGA has no competitors. Nobody wants to steal or copy the USGA formula. 

[sui generis]

19 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

I understand that.  But I'm saying just because it's proprietary doesn't mean it should be hidden.  Yes, they have the right to hide their formula, but they have no good reason to hide it.

 

Your analogy is flawed.  KFC has competitors and therefore a good reason for secret recipes.  The USGA has no competitors. Nobody wants to steal or copy the USGA formula. 

 

GHIN has competitors.

[Newby]

59 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

I understand that.  But I'm saying just because it's proprietary doesn't mean it should be hidden.  Yes, they have the right to hide their formula, but they have no good reason to hide it.

 

Your analogy is flawed.  KFC has competitors and therefore a good reason for secret recipes.  The USGA has no competitors. Nobody wants to steal or copy the USGA formula. 

The USGA are not the only owners of the copyright. It is the WHS organisation itself, involving multiple authorities including the R&A, GA, CONGU et al.

There are plenty of competitors around the world. To counter this England Golf and Scottish Golf are now offering WHS handicapping 'membership facilities' to players not affiliated to a club.

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Your analogy is flawed.  KFC has competitors and therefore a good reason for secret recipes.  The USGA has no competitors. Nobody wants to steal or copy the USGA formula. 

 

It is NOT a formula of USGA. Take some lessons about Ruling Bodies.

[Shilgy]

Just had back to back rounds with an adjustment…a +1 and a +2 on Friday and Saturday.  First PCC adjustments I’ve seen here in Phoenix.  Obviously it’s the scores that trigger the adjustment and the reasons for the poor scoring were  winds about 20 mph over the norm…plus green speeds stimped at 12.5-13….plus pins that they didn’t want to use for our Senior Member Guest that started today.  
  Combine the wind, green speeds and tough pins and ….voilà!