WHS Rule Changes for 2024

[RCGA]

Everyone talking about only counting tournament scores are out to lunch. 

 

Half the people in my club only play tournaments for the skins component (and beer). And another large percentage will start double-double-double and throw the entire round to boost their handicap to aid them in the next net event. 

[davep043]

For those who are interested, here's the USGA release.  Not much new information, the only thing I see is that the PCC calculation will be revised a bit.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2023/11/revisions-coming-to-world-handicap-system-in-2024.html?fbclid=IwAR1ThcHpfzws5aS1fckJ4URrVp0_s1R4-Giw-OyMGMdPIYZpyOW8uVXSkYc

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, RCGA said:

Everyone talking about only counting tournament scores are out to lunch. 

 

Half the people in my club only play tournaments for the skins component (and beer). And another large percentage will start double-double-double and throw the entire round to boost their handicap to aid them in the next net event. 

 

Welllllll,,,,,,,, those who want such a thing are obviously lower cappers that have been burned in net events by high(er) handicappers.

 

As a "1" yourself I imagine you've been there and done that, yes ?

 

So the subject is (mostly) about sandbagging. "Nobody" cares about vanity cappers except the 1 or 2 guys forced into a higher flight because of said vanity capper(s).

 

So the players in your club YOU describe fall well within the "complaint" - depending on the proportion of rounds they play so lackadaisically to the ones where they're more serious.

 

So the argument (only tourney rounds) succeeds in that it represents how they play when the stakes really matter. Makes sense to me.

 

But the problem here is many-fold. Not everyone uses their cap for high(er) level tourneys. Many use it for casual games among friends, or much less formal tourneys or local games. Or just to track their progress. Or just to tell people their 'cap is XX. Not to mention the revenue brought in to member clubs and GHIN.

 

 

[Pfish]

Reading the new Holes Not Played, I’m wondering what the expected score would be.  
For example I looked at 20 score cards from this year of rounds where 18 holes were completed.  However, quite a few times a year I won’t play the last 3 holes for a variety of reasons.  Here are the average scores for 20 rounds of the 16-18th holes completed. Also I’m kind of consistent and don’t very often reach my max for handicap scoring purposes.  With my current handicap I would get 1 stroke on each of the following holes so if I didn’t play those holes this year I would record 4,5,5 for handicap.  Maybe it would end up being the same for me but I would like to know what the math is.

 

16th is par 3 18th hole. Average score 3.95

17th is par 4 13th stroke hole. Average score 4.95

18th is par 4 4th stroke hole. Average score 5.43

[Schulzmc]

22 hours ago, davep043 said:

For those who are interested, here's the USGA release.  Not much new information, the only thing I see is that the PCC calculation will be revised a bit.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2023/11/revisions-coming-to-world-handicap-system-in-2024.html?fbclid=IwAR1ThcHpfzws5aS1fckJ4URrVp0_s1R4-Giw-OyMGMdPIYZpyOW8uVXSkYc

Thanks for that. Regarding the PCC it says, “modified to increase the likelihood of an adjustment for abnormal playing conditions.” That’s NOT good news from my perspective.

[davep043]

21 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

Thanks for that. Regarding the PCC it says, “modified to increase the likelihood of an adjustment for abnormal playing conditions.” That’s NOT good news from my perspective.

Why do you see that as a problem?  When I went to a seminar in 2019 to learn about the upcoming WHS, the official estimate was that a PCC would probably be applied about 10% of the time.  In my experience, and from what I've read here and in other forums, the actual incidence has been substantially less.  I am guessing that the adjustment is intended to get the PCC occurrence rate closer to that 10%.

 

42 minutes ago, Pfish said:

Maybe it would end up being the same for me but I would like to know what the math is.

I don't think you're going to see the math.  The USGA has recently published more articles here:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/2024-revision.html

The explanation of the partial rounds says:

"A player with a Handicap Index of 10.0 plays 14 holes before stopping play due to severe weather. Through 14 holes, the player had an adjusted gross score of 64. After posting the 14-hole score hole-by-hole, a Score Differential will be calculated based on the score of 64 and the Course Rating information for the 14 holes played, and that result will be added to the expected Score Differential over 4 holes for a 10.0 Handicap Index player to determine an 18-hole Score Differential."

This isn't based on your personal averages, this is a mythical player with the same index as yours.

[rogolf]

26 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Why do you see that as a problem?  When I went to a seminar in 2019 to learn about the upcoming WHS, the official estimate was that a PCC would probably be applied about 10% of the time.  In my experience, and from what I've read here and in other forums, the actual incidence has been substantially less.  I am guessing that the adjustment is intended to get the PCC occurrence rate closer to that 10%.

 

I don't think you're going to see the math.  The USGA has recently published more articles here:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/2024-revision.html

The explanation of the partial rounds says:

"A player with a Handicap Index of 10.0 plays 14 holes before stopping play due to severe weather. Through 14 holes, the player had an adjusted gross score of 64. After posting the 14-hole score hole-by-hole, a Score Differential will be calculated based on the score of 64 and the Course Rating information for the 14 holes played, and that result will be added to the expected Score Differential over 4 holes for a 10.0 Handicap Index player to determine an 18-hole Score Differential."

This isn't based on your personal averages, this is a mythical player with the same index as yours.

While the player may be "mythical", the result will be based on mathematical algorithms for 10 handicap players and the hole ratings.

[davep043]

2 minutes ago, rogolf said:

While the player may be "mythical", the result will be based on mathematical algorithms for 10 handicap players and the hole ratings.

For sure, its not completely made up, but its not individualized to an specific player's past performance, its more likely based on a compilation of all 10 handicap players.

[rogolf]

15 minutes ago, davep043 said:

For sure, its not completely made up, but its not individualized to an specific player's past performance, its more likely based on a compilation of all 10 handicap players.

With the amount of data/scores available from the worldwide handicap system, the result should be very reliable and consistent.

[deadsolid...shank]

On 11/6/2023 at 6:48 AM, Shilgy said:

And it might prorate the last five holes as a couple under since you seem to have righted the ship in that round.  As a 4 I would find it more likely than another 40…but that’s just me.

Heck, before long we won’t even have to go out and actually play. We’ll say I felt like playing and an algorithm will figure out what we would have shot for the day!😀
 

 

[Schulzmc]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

Why do you see that as a problem?  When I went to a seminar in 2019 to learn about the upcoming WHS, the official estimate was that a PCC would probably be applied about 10% of the time.  In my experience, and from what I've read here and in other forums, the actual incidence has been substantially less.  I am guessing that the adjustment is intended to get the PCC occurrence rate closer to that 10%.

I see it as a problem because, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I believe the PCC was designed and implemented to address scoring anomalies based on weather and course conditions, set up, etc., but more often than not it kicks in (at least here in the US) when guys who normally don’t post scores under tournament conditions now have to play under those conditions and their scores are higher. Guys who always play strictly to the rules get penalized.

 

But not everyone agrees with my assessment - so I could be totally out in left field.

 

EDIT: I should also add that most people I know simply do not play in bad weather. And our course setup is fairly consistent. So I also believe the whole PCC system is a solution looking for a problem.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Schulzmc

[davep043]

7 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

So I also believe the whole PCC system is a solution looking for a problem.

I have a different view, I think the WHS took something from each of the 6 systems previously in use.  I learned a lot by reading this:

https://www.sctexas.org/Files/Library/27933/WORLDHANDICAPSYSTEM.PDF

Three of the six handicap systems used some kind of adjustment for daily conditions, CONGU, EGA, and Australia.  Two of those (CONGU and EGA) used a kind of "ratchet" system for handicap calculation, your handicap went up or down if your score was outside of a "buffer" zone defined around your current handicap.  Those two systems saw the biggest change in calculation method, going to an "averaging" system similar to what we've had in the USGA for about ever.  Adoption of some kind of daily adjustment seems a very logical part of the compromises made to make the WHS happen.

[rogolf]

2 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I have a different view, I think the WHS took something from each of the 6 systems previously in use.  I learned a lot by reading this:

https://www.sctexas.org/Files/Library/27933/WORLDHANDICAPSYSTEM.PDF

Three of the six handicap systems used some kind of adjustment for daily conditions, CONGU, EGA, and Australia.  Two of those (CONGU and EGA) used a kind of "ratchet" system for handicap calculation, your handicap went up or down if your score was outside of a "buffer" zone defined around your current handicap.  Those two systems saw the biggest change in calculation method, going to an "averaging" system similar to what we've had in the USGA for about ever.  Adoption of some kind of daily adjustment seems a very logical part of the compromises made to make the WHS happen.

There were obviously a lot of "compromises" made by the national associations to come up with the "world handicap system" (even though some of those compromises were negated through national applications).  As you say, earlier versions of the "PCC" were in place in other parts of the world, but not in North America.  It will continue to evolve.

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, rogolf said:

It will continue to evolve.

I'm tempted to look back, but I'm pretty sure I said the same thing 4 years ago, and it wouldn't surprise me if you've said the same thing before as well.  I hope we eventually get to have a truly world-wide system.  I don't know how long it will take, but we're a lot closer now than ever before.

[Schulzmc]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

I have a different view, I think the WHS took something from each of the 6 systems previously in use.  I learned a lot by reading this:

https://www.sctexas.org/Files/Library/27933/WORLDHANDICAPSYSTEM.PDF

Three of the six handicap systems used some kind of adjustment for daily conditions, CONGU, EGA, and Australia.  Two of those (CONGU and EGA) used a kind of "ratchet" system for handicap calculation, your handicap went up or down if your score was outside of a "buffer" zone defined around your current handicap.  Those two systems saw the biggest change in calculation method, going to an "averaging" system similar to what we've had in the USGA for about ever.  Adoption of some kind of daily adjustment seems a very logical part of the compromises made to make the WHS happen.

That was a good read. Very helpful. And I do understand the rationale. But here is what I think is happening:

 

In some parts of the world there is little difference between "tournament" or "competition" scores and every day (for want of a better term) scores. Most posted rounds are played under the same competitive and rules adherence conditions. In those systems the PCC system makes sense because the compared scores are "apples to apples" and so weather, course set up, etc can be isolated as the cause of an unusual group of scores. But here in the US (at least my part) the vast majority of guys I play with play by a looser set of rules for "every day" golf than they do for our competitions. (Giving short puts, playing OB laterally, moving a ball out of a fairway divot, dropping a new ball with one stroke for a lost ball, etc.) None of this is egregious, but I would guess the average golfer at my club posts a score 3-5 strokes higher for our competitive events. Add in the pressure of competition over a fun round with your friends and you get the idea. 

 

Looking back over my 56 rounds I posted this year, I would estimate 12 of them were under tournament conditions. So the PCC is not always comparing "apples to apples" for me and the vast majority of the guys at my club. In discussing this with my pro, and looking back at the year, there were six PCC adjustments for our club. We believe only one of those was an "every day" day with bad weather. The other five were all competition days, and for four of those five the weather was perfect. (One was a little cold and windy, but nothing dramatic.) So the main thing the PCC did this year is adjust for people strictly following the rules and playing under tournament pressure. I don't think that is (or should be) the intent.

 

So the bottom line - maybe a WHS is just not realistic, because the way handicaps are used and scores are posted is just too different around the world. And the PCC is one example of this.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Schulzmc

[davep043]

1 minute ago, Schulzmc said:

So the bottom line - maybe a WHS is just not realistic, because the way handicaps are used and scores are posted is just to different around the world. And the PCC is one example of this.

This gets me to one of my own personal wishes, that those of us in the USGA areas would adopt something which is used in other parts of the world.  Competition scores are used, and to post a "casual" score you MUST pre-register in advance, you MUST post a score if you pre-register, and your score MUST be attested by another player in your group, all of which is done through a phone app.  I know it would be a huge adjustment for many of us, but it would be a positive thing for the reliability of handicaps here.  And to your point, it would improve the reliability of the PCC calculations, fur just the reason you cite.

[North Butte]

3 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

So the bottom line - maybe a WHS is just not realistic, because the way handicaps are used and scores are posted is just to different around the world. And the PCC is one example of this.

Yes but there was an enormous demand for a world system...among the few hundred folks who run the national golf associations around the world. The rest of us? Not so much.

[Schulzmc]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

This gets me to one of my own personal wishes, that those of us in the USGA areas would adopt something which is used in other parts of the world.  Competition scores are used, and to post a "casual" score you MUST pre-register in advance, you MUST post a score if you pre-register, and your score MUST be attested by another player in your group, all of which is done through a phone app.  I know it would be a huge adjustment for many of us, but it would be a positive thing for the reliability of handicaps here.  And to your point, it would improve the reliability of the PCC calculations, fur just the reason you cite.

Yes! This. Totally agree.

[kiwigolf72]

The WHS was supposed to unite and bring together the HCs but in reality, when there is so much difference in posting of scores, I'm not sure it can.

In my part of the world casual golf is not a term that is used, every round, whether it be a round with your friends, a club run event, or a bigger tournament are all the same. We play by the ROG, we fill out a score card, we get it signed and then we hand it to the club we have played at, and they post it.

NZ golf has come up with a digital version of the system, but it still needs a marker to attest your score and it is expected to be done after every round, this was implemented through covid.

Until we all start doing things the same way the WHS is meaningless, and any changes are pointless, there are differences on how the system is being used and any changes will not take that into consideration.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by kiwigolf72
added

[Newby]

On 11/8/2023 at 4:28 PM, davep043 said:

For those who are interested, here's the USGA release.  Not much new information, the only thing I see is that the PCC calculation will be revised a bit.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2023/11/revisions-coming-to-world-handicap-system-in-2024.html?fbclid=IwAR1ThcHpfzws5aS1fckJ4URrVp0_s1R4-Giw-OyMGMdPIYZpyOW8uVXSkYc

An excellent article.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

That was a good read. Very helpful. And I do understand the rationale. But here is what I think is happening:

 

In some parts of the world there is little difference between "tournament" or "competition" scores and every day (for want of a better term) scores. Most posted rounds are played under the same competitive and rules adherence conditions. In those systems the PCC system makes sense because the compared scores are "apples to apples" and so weather, course set up, etc can be isolated as the cause of an unusual group of scores. But here in the US (at least my part) the vast majority of guys I play with play by a looser set of rules for "every day" golf than they do for our competitions. (Giving short puts, playing OB laterally, moving a ball out of a fairway divot, dropping a new ball with one stroke for a lost ball, etc.) None of this is egregious, but I would guess the average golfer at my club posts a score 3-5 strokes higher for our competitive events. Add in the pressure of competition over a fun round with your friends and you get the idea. 

 

Looking back over my 56 rounds I posted this year, I would estimate 12 of them were under tournament conditions. So the PCC is not always comparing "apples to apples" for me and the vast majority of the guys at my club. In discussing this with my pro, and looking back at the year, there were six PCC adjustments for our club. We believe only one of those was an "every day" day with bad weather. The other five were all competition days, and for four of those five the weather was perfect. (One was a little cold and windy, but nothing dramatic.) So the main thing the PCC did this year is adjust for people strictly following the rules and playing under tournament pressure. I don't think that is (or should be) the intent.

 

So the bottom line - maybe a WHS is just not realistic, because the way handicaps are used and scores are posted is just too different around the world. And the PCC is one example of this.

So…based on how your usual group plays you’re all vanity caps and want the rest of us to not have a PCC.  Moving the ball out of divots…dropping for OB…and lost balls-and just counting one extra stroke for it.  That behavior is NOT giving you accurate handicaps.

 

No wonder you play “worse” playing real golf in competition.

 

Sorry if that sounds harsh but it is what it is.

[davep043]

20 minutes ago, kiwigolf72 said:

Until we all start doing things the same way the WHS is meaningless, and any changes are pointless.

I don't agree.  I'm aware that there are significant cultural differences, but that doesn't mean that change is impossible.  The only possible way to even begin a unification process is by finding a number o\f things to agree on, while allowing some regional differences to remain.  The current change in the way scores for few than 18 holes are treated unifies one more aspect, eliminates one of the existing differences.  It may not happen in my lifetime, but I do believe eventually there will be a single handicap system.  

For those who say its not possible, consider the Rules of Golf.  At first, every single golf club had its own set of Rules.  Do you think Old Tom could envision the day when golf all around the world was played under a single set of Rules?  Yet here we are.

[jvincent]

58 minutes ago, kiwigolf72 said:

The WHS was supposed to unite and bring together the HCs but in reality, when there is so much difference in posting of scores, I'm not sure it can.

In my part of the world casual golf is not a term that is used, every round, whether it be a round with your friends, a club run event, or a bigger tournament are all the same. We play by the ROG, we fill out a score card, we get it signed and then we hand it to the club we have played at, and they post it.

 

Just curious, do people ever play practice rounds in NZ?

 

As in, multiple balls off a tee or from the fairway to a green, as part of tournament prep?

[kiwigolf72]

8 minutes ago, jvincent said:

Just curious, do people ever play practice rounds in NZ?

 

As in, multiple balls off a tee or from the fairway to a green, as part of tournament prep?

yes, but that wouldn't be able to be posted as its not being played under the ROG. 

[jvincent]

2 minutes ago, kiwigolf72 said:

yes, but that wouldn't be able to be posted as its not being played under the ROG. 

 

Do you have to declare it in advance or do you just not return a scorecard?

[kiwigolf72]

Just now, jvincent said:

 

Do you have to declare it in advance or do you just not return a scorecard?

If you're playing a club run event, then quite clearly, you're not practicing so you have to return a card. 

We don't have to declare any other time that we are not handing in a card, but if my mates and I went out every day and then used the excuse that we were practicing and therefore unable to post a score the club would be asking questions. If there was a comp on a Saturday, then it would be acceptable to practice the day before but not play 8 days before and use the upcoming comp as an excuse.

 

 

[kiwigolf72]

38 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I don't agree.  I'm aware that there are significant cultural differences, but that doesn't mean that change is impossible.  The only possible way to even begin a unification process is by finding a number o\f things to agree on, while allowing some regional differences to remain.  The current change in the way scores for few than 18 holes are treated unifies one more aspect, eliminates one of the existing differences.  It may not happen in my lifetime, but I do believe eventually there will be a single handicap system.  

For those who say its not possible, consider the Rules of Golf.  At first, every single golf club had its own set of Rules.  Do you think Old Tom could envision the day when golf all around the world was played under a single set of Rules?  Yet here we are.

I agree that changes to how holes being scored for unfinished rounds is a good thing for all WHS users and yes it helps unifies the system better.

I disagree that somehow cultural or regional differences make using the system differently ok, or that the WHS should make allowances for that.

That was the whole point of the WHS, didn't matter where you were from or where you played, we all had the same way of doing it, resulting in a global HC.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by kiwigolf72

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, kiwigolf72 said:

I disagree that somehow cultural or regional differences make using the system differently ok, or that the WHS should make allowances for that.

We can agree to disagree, I suppose.  If I ever get to NZ, I'll try to get in touch and set up a game, I hope you'll do the same if you're ever near Washington DC.  This conversation would be much more fun if it was held with a couple of pints in front of  us.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, davep043 said:

Why do you see that as a problem?  When I went to a seminar in 2019 to learn about the upcoming WHS, the official estimate was that a PCC would probably be applied about 10% of the time.  In my experience, and from what I've read here and in other forums, the actual incidence has been substantially less.  I am guessing that the adjustment is intended to get the PCC occurrence rate closer to that 10%.

 

Additionally, and I'll be vague on purpose… the vast majority of scores that got a + PCC were not used in the 8 of 20 for individual handicaps. Which makes sense: when the scores are bad enough to warrant a + PCC, the people who played that day likely didn't score very well, and so their round likely won't count.

 

So of the 10% (which ended up being less as you noted), if even 25% of those have a counting score that day… that's 2.5% of scores affected by the PCC. And it's not as high as 25%…

 

2 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

We believe only one of those was an "every day" day with bad weather.

 

Again… stop talking about the weather. The weather is not considered by the PCC algorithm. It only knows who played, what their indexes are, and what their scores were.

 

1 hour ago, kiwigolf72 said:

The WHS was supposed to unite and bring together the HCs but in reality, when there is so much difference in posting of scores, I'm not sure it can.

 

It's closer now than it was in 2019, and will be closer in 2024 than it is currently.

[kiwigolf72]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

 

Additionally, and I'll be vague on purpose… the vast majority of scores that got a + PCC were not used in the 8 of 20 for individual handicaps. Which makes sense: when the scores are bad enough to warrant a + PCC, the people who played that day likely didn't score very well, and so their round likely won't count.

 

So of the 10% (which ended up being less as you noted), if even 25% of those have a counting score that day… that's 2.5% of scores affected by the PCC. And it's not as high as 25%…

 

 

Again… stop talking about the weather. The weather is not considered by the PCC algorithm. It only knows who played, what their indexes are, and what their scores were.

 

 

It's closer now than it was in 2019, and will be closer in 2024 than it is currently.

agree that it is getting closer.

The PCC recognises scores that are higher and lower so it can potentially move in either direction.