Golfers brought the questions, and the USGA brought the answers—at least as many as time allowed. On May 7, Lee Rainwater, Director of Handicapping Education & Outreach at the USGA, took to Reddit’s r/golf community for a one-hour AMA (Ask Me Anything) focused on the World Handicap System (WHS). The discussion was fast-paced, civil, and deeply engaged, with players from all levels weighing in on the parts of the system that continue to cause confusion—or controversy.

Full AMA here.

9-Hole Scores: Clarified, But Still Contentious

The most upvoted thread questioned the fairness of extrapolating 9-hole scores into 18-hole differentials, especially when players felt their actual performance wasn’t being accurately reflected.

“Over half of my current revision scores are 9-hole rounds, and so my current H.I. feels more ‘made up’ than based on actual play.”

Rainwater acknowledged the concern and explained that the change was introduced to improve score processing speed and accuracy. The shift allows 9-hole scores to immediately impact a player’s index without needing to wait for a matching 9-hole round.

“We recognize that this is a change in how 9-hole rounds have been handled, and we’re monitoring feedback closely.” — Lee Rainwater

While the USGA sees it as a step forward, many golfers voiced interest in a more flexible or hybrid approach in future revisions.

PCC: Transparency Wanted

The Playing Conditions Calculation (PCC) was another hot topic. Golfers shared stories of braving brutal conditions with no PCC adjustment, while benign-weather days sometimes triggered penalties. The core complaint? A lack of visibility into how the PCC is triggered.

“I’ve had multiple -1 PCC adjustments, including one in a thunderstorm, but never seen a +1—despite 40mph winds and rain.”

Rainwater explained that the PCC requires a minimum number of scores from a course on a given day and relies on statistical variance compared to expected scoring behavior. He acknowledged that it’s not perfect—and confirmed the USGA is working on ways to improve both how it functions and how it’s communicated to players.

“We are always exploring ways to make PCC more understandable and reflective of playing difficulty.” — Lee Rainwater

Course Ratings: A Question of Perception vs. Data

Several threads challenged the notion that pristine private courses are rated more difficult than scrappy municipal tracks with tough playing conditions.

“Bare dirt, cratered greens, and mud bunkers don’t make for an easy round, but they rarely show up in the ratings.”

Rainwater responded that Course Rating and Slope are based on how a scratch golfer would likely perform under standard playing conditions. While imperfections in course conditions are noted during on-site rating visits, the system isn’t designed to track temporary conditions like weather or maintenance.

It was a reminder that perception and statistical modeling don’t always align—but also that the system isn’t static.

Engagement, Encouragement, and Next Steps

The AMA wrapped up with Rainwater thanking participants and encouraging follow-up questions via email. He also mentioned that the team would continue replying to Reddit questions throughout the week.

“I hope I was able to answer some questions, address feedback, and offer explanations… we’ll try to get to more by the end of the week.”

The USGA’s willingness to step into the community and open the door for honest dialogue was widely appreciated—even if every answer didn’t satisfy every golfer. For many, it felt like a step toward greater transparency in a system that impacts nearly every round they post.

We’ll continue tracking responses and summarize additional USGA feedback as it becomes available.