Differential vs Course Handicap

[xrayvizhen]

On 11/23/2025 at 3:28 AM, wacker said:

You actually just made my point for me, it's too reactive, cheers 

After reading through this whole thread, I actually have no idea what the hell your point is other than your apparently insatiable desire to get the last word in. It's more reactive when you're playing better, less reactive when you're not, which IMO, is the way it should be.

[Ty_Webb]

On 11/23/2025 at 3:28 AM, wacker said:

You actually just made my point for me, it's too reactive, cheers 

So it's a good thing that it would take 5 years to go up 5 shots on the old system? If you want it to be slower, just post your competition rounds, not your regular play rounds (not an option in the US, but I believe it is in the UK). I don't understand how your handicap showing your current form is a bad thing. Why should we care how someone was playing 4 years ago when deciding how many shots they get today?

[wacker]

16 hours ago, Ty_Webb said:

So it's a good thing that it would take 5 years to go up 5 shots on the old system? If you want it to be slower, just post your competition rounds, not your regular play rounds (not an option in the US, but I believe it is in the UK). I don't understand how your handicap showing your current form is a bad thing. Why should we care how someone was playing 4 years ago when deciding how many shots they get today?

That isn't possible where I play. I play in two bashes 3 or 4 times a week, and the rules of the bash is you have to register a card. Like I said before, I like most aspects of the system, but believe handicaps can raise too quickly. In poor weather conditions on a wet course my last three cards averaged my handicap. I came second in two of the bashes and won the other, yet my handicap has risen 0.9 in the last week. I totally understand why it has, and how the system works, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. Meanwhile my playing partners are really p155ed off I have got a shot back😁

[iacas]

Sample size of one, and an unusual one at that.

You've dodged several things here, so… that tells a story too.

[wacker]

On 11/26/2025 at 12:50 PM, iacas said:

Sample size of one, and an unusual one at that.

You've dodged several things here, so… that tells a story too.

and what story would that be?

[boogielicious]

3 hours ago, wacker said:

and what story would that be?

People have asked you questions or asked you to present more information/data and you have not responded. The story then becomes you either don’t understand how the system and math works or you just want to rant and don’t care how the system works. Folks here are trying to educate you and you don’t want to be educated.

[iacas]

Scott got it, pretty much.

It's fine to have an opinion. It's fine to have an opinion that differs. But your opinion isn't a fully educated one — you didn't know about PCC, for example — and I still think in addition to the lack of education that these things are true:

• You're a sample size of one.
• You're a rare-ish case who plays a lot of golf.
• You've not sampled the opinions of the majority of others in the UK.
• You don't like change (few people do).

You've dodged direct questions and re-stated your (not fully informed) opinions several times now.

We may not convince you to change your mind (I've matured in the sense that I now mostly post in response to people who seem to have their minds set to educate and perhaps sway the opinions of those reading who are undecided), but we can still educate you and some others.

[wacker]

22 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

People have asked you questions or asked you to present more information/data and you have not responded. The story then becomes you either don’t understand how the system and math works or you just want to rant and don’t care how the system works. Folks here are trying to educate you and you don’t want to be educated.

Perhaps you should read my posts again. I have repeatedly said I DO know how the system works, so posting my scores is pointless. Knowing how it works doesn't mean I have to agree with it. The old system in the UK meant a handicap could drop quite quickly, but would take a long time to rise. This meant a golfer's handicap reflected their potential. The present system is very reactive, which tends to mean that it takes a while for a handicap to come down, but if the golfer goes through a temporary rough patch  it can rise quickly. At the beginning of the summer my handicap rose four shots in a short period, but it then took me about five months to get it down again. 

I just played three rounds and averaged my handicap in very testing winter conditions. Because I had two of my three best rounds drop off, which were played in the summer months, this meant my handicap went up a shot. Sorry, but in what world does that make any sense ?

[iacas]

33 minutes ago, wacker said:

I have repeatedly said I DO know how the system works…

You didn't even know about PCC. You seemed to be unaware of soft and hard caps. Saying that you know and demonstrating that you know are two different things.

33 minutes ago, wacker said:

The old system in the UK meant a handicap could drop quite quickly, but would take a long time to rise.

We know. It could take way, way too long to rise.

It's what you're used to, and change is hard.

33 minutes ago, wacker said:

This meant a golfer's handicap reflected their potential.

That's the language we used to have here, too. Now it's "demonstrated ability." The new system more accurately reflects the golfer's demonstrated ability.

Plus the soft and hard caps that limit upward movement.

33 minutes ago, wacker said:

The present system is very reactive, which tends to mean that it takes a while for a handicap to come down  but if the golfer goes through a temporary rough patch  it can rise quickly.

That's not true. The opposite is closer to true.

It's more reactive than the old UK system (a good thing IMO), and it's much quicker to go down than it is to go up, especially if a golfer shoots an exceptional score. This is just math and is factual.

This has been demonstrated several times for you. You refuse to acknowledge that you've got it wrong, mathematically, or you're being quite loose with the definitions of some words.

33 minutes ago, wacker said:

At the beginning of the summer my handicap rose four shots in a short period, but it then took me about five months to get it down again.

Again, pal, post the handicap history or pipe down, because that doesn't make any real sense. The first good score you shoot drops your handicap. The next good score you shoot drops it again. The first twelve bad scores you shoot have the potential to not affect your index at all, if they bump off other non-counting scores.

33 minutes ago, wacker said:

I just played three rounds and averaged my handicap in very testing winter conditions. Because I had two of my three best rounds drop off, which were played in the summer months, this meant my handicap went up a shot. Sorry, but in what world does that make any sense?

It's just math, man. And you're still a sample size of one, with some strange definitions and you play a lot of golf.

I'm also not even really sure I believe you anymore.

So, again… Please post your handicap record (like below) for the past year so we can all see exactly what you're talking about or just stop posting in this thread. It's going nowhere.

Would look like a bigger version of this (not mine):

[wacker]

Can't you just accept that most golfers in the UK are not fans of the system. I am capable of seeing both sides of the argument, and appreciate it's positives, whilst you appear to have been brainwashed into thinking it's perfect. I'll say it again, I just averaged my handicap over three rounds in terrible winter conditions, but got a shot back, yet you defend the system. Sorry, that's just crazy. IMO a handicap should reflect potential, and the old system only expected a golfer to hit his/her handicap about six times a year, the current system is far to reactive. I am Mr Average and believe a shot a hole reflects my ability. If I continue to put in cards during the winter (which I have to) by the spring I will be playing off about 30. It's bonkers 

 

I see absolutely no point in posting my scores, because I am not looking for an explanation, I am simply telling you the system has flaws. There are rumours it may change before long, I hope I am right 

Edited November 29, 2025 by wacker

[boogielicious]

You seem to be the only UK forum member that doesn’t like the system. No one else is rushing to your aid.

[iacas]

6 hours ago, wacker said:

Can't you just accept that most golfers in the UK are not fans of the system.

Why? Because you said so?

I’m on the board of directors for my AGA. I’ve been a course rating captain for almost 15 years and I’ve been to multiple national course rating seminars. I ran a GHIN eClub and am a rules official that has worked at national championships.

You are saying things that are factually and mathematically incorrect.

6 hours ago, wacker said:

If I continue to put in cards during the winter (which I have to) by the spring I will be playing off about 30. It's bonkers 

Like that, demonstrating a continued lack of understanding and knowledge.

[GolfLug]

23 hours ago, wacker said:

I had two of my three best rounds drop off, which were played in the summer months, this meant my handicap went up a shot. 

So you play 3-4 rounds/week, post ALL of your rounds, yet these 'three best rounds' from summer JUST fell off??

Give us your score history or should we say, err..the plot thickens?

[wacker]

On 11/29/2025 at 11:11 PM, iacas said:

Why? Because you said so?

I’m on the board of directors for my AGA. I’ve been a course rating captain for almost 15 years and I’ve been to multiple national course rating seminars. I ran a GHIN eClub and am a rules official that has worked at national championships.

You are saying things that are factually and mathematically incorrect.

Like that, demonstrating a continued lack of understanding and knowledge.

Yes, but you don't live in the UK, so you have no idea what we think about it here. It's a very different mindset here, to demonstrate the fact you should consider 9 out of 10 games we play here are Stableford, whereas you you almost solely play medal. Neither is right or wrong, it's just different 

On 11/30/2025 at 12:43 PM, GolfLug said:

So you play 3-4 rounds/week, post ALL of your rounds, yet these 'three best rounds' from summer JUST fell off??

Give us your score history or should we say, err..the plot thickens?

I'm trying to avoid swearing here. Once again, and for the 1000th time, I understand the system, I just don't agree with it. Is there anything wrong with that?

PS, I do not have the time or patience to post my results, especially as they prove nothing 

On 11/29/2025 at 9:42 PM, boogielicious said:

You seem to be the only UK forum member that doesn’t like the system. No one else is rushing to your aid.

That's because 99% of the posters are Yanks

[iacas]

50 minutes ago, wacker said:

Yes, but you don't live in the UK, so you have no idea what we think about it here. It's a very different mindset here, to demonstrate the fact you should consider 9 out of 10 games we play here are Stableford, whereas you you almost solely play medal. Neither is right or wrong, it's just different 

I have access to far more data (including surveys and polls) than you do with your anecdotes.

51 minutes ago, wacker said:

I'm trying to avoid swearing here. Once again, and for the 1000th time, I understand the system, I just don't agree with it. Is there anything wrong with that?

I mean this as plainly and literally as possible: you’ve demonstrated that you do not.

51 minutes ago, wacker said:

PS, I do not have the time or patience to post my results, especially as they prove nothing 

They would, one way or the other.

[GolfLug]

54 minutes ago, wacker said:

I'm trying to avoid swearing here. Once again, and for the 1000th time, I understand the system, I just don't agree with it. Is there anything wrong with that?

Didn't say anything about your understanding in my post.

54 minutes ago, wacker said:

I'm trying to avoid swearing here. Once again, and for the 1000th time, I understand the system, I just don't agree with it. Is there anything wrong with that?

 Well, if you are not insisting on alignment with logic of the WHS, then no. 

54 minutes ago, wacker said:

PS, I do not have the time or patience to post my results, especially as they prove nothing.

Try me/us.

54 minutes ago, wacker said:

I'm trying to avoid swearing here.

What do you want from us then?? You are not making sense. You come here and post in an open forum, question a system that is constructed with logic, without using any of your own and then give us a small window of your personal experience to support your narrative which at first sight does not makes sense. 

I mean, if you are a point of swearing then I would suggest you cut your losses and humor a more gullible audience elsewhere. Good heavens.

Edited December 4, 2025 by GolfLug

[mdl]

On 10/14/2025 at 3:27 PM, boil3rmak3r said:

Yeah, most golfers have no understanding of how golf is truly handicapped.

I am a 6.9 hdcp and play from tees that are rated at 70.8/126.  I have seniors that are 20 hdcps and they want to do a money game with me giving them 13 strokes.  Their tees rate 64/106.  So, even though our hdcps are 13 strokes different, the tee ratings are 7 strokes different.  So, they will never play for money if I only give them the appropriate 6 strokes.

Yes it's true in a large sample like a tournament a bunch of 20 handicaps shouldn't get 13 strokes more than you. One of them will have a day and win. But two on one, the 7 handicap is going to cover those 13 strokes the vast majority of the time. 20 handicaps are shit players. With super high variance and a very asymmetrical distribution of scores. Yes they shoot 85 every once in a while. But they shoot 110 way more often. A 7 handicap's equivalent is shooting 74 every once in a while but... 86 way more often?

[xrayvizhen]

On 10/14/2025 at 6:27 PM, boil3rmak3r said:

Yeah, most golfers have no understanding of how golf is truly handicapped.

I am a 6.9 hdcp and play from tees that are rated at 70.8/126.  I have seniors that are 20 hdcps and they want to do a money game with me giving them 13 strokes.  Their tees rate 64/106.  So, even though our hdcps are 13 strokes different, the tee ratings are 7 strokes different.  So, they will never play for money if I only give them the appropriate 6 strokes.

I'm not sure you're calculating the number of strokes you would need to give correctly. The way I figure it, a 6.9 index golfer playing from tees that are rated 70.8/126 would have a course handicap of 6. A 20-index golfer playing from tees that are rated 64/106 would have a course handicap of 11. Therefore, based on the example above, assuming this is the same golf course and these index & slope numbers are based on the different tees, you should only have to give 5 strokes (or one stroke on the five most difficult holes if match play) not 6. Regardless, I get your point...the average golfer has no understanding of how the system works and trying to explain it to people, who haven't bothered to read the documentation provided by either the USGA or the R&A, is hopeless. In any case, I think the WHS as it currently is, does the best job possible of leveling the playing field and I think most golfers (obviously, based on the back & forth on this thread, not all golfers) at least comprehend that.