Re: Handicaps
"Then why do they assign ratings, and not handicaps? Curious." A measurement rule can take two forms. Some rules are written to create designs, like the Metre rule than the America's Cups was raced under for years. All boats rate the the same under this type of rule. (no handicaps) The other type of rule attempts to assign a rating to a boat base on measurements. A handicap is assigned based on the rating. the CCA rule was used for years. The IOR rule was created to rate *existing* boats more fairly (it did a pretty good job). As soon as the designers got into it, they stopped trying to build fast boats. They instead built boats that where faster than the IOR rule predicts. You might have a boat that was slow for its size, but fast for its rating. Designing to the rule perverted the boats and created an IOR type. IMS was developed to replace IOR. The program used to rate the boats was secret so the designers couldn't create rule beaters like they did under IOR. It didn't take long for the designer to figure out what made a boat fast for it's rating under IMS and has created an IMS type. PHRF handicaps are called ratings because sailors are used to thinking that way. Under CCA, IOR and IMS your boats rating determined the handicap. When you call a PHRF handicap a rating, people assume that the PHRF rule assigns handicaps the same way that the other systems do. PHRF is like a system that has looked at the relationship between height and scoring in basketball and assigns a handicap based on that data (proven performance). IMS, and Americap try to predict how a player of a given height will score and assign a handicap based on prediction. What sounds fairer to you?
"Then why do they assign ratings, and not handicaps? Curious." A measurement rule can take two forms. Some rules are written to create designs, like the Metre rule than the America's Cups was raced under for years. All boats rate the the same under this type of rule. (no handicaps) The other type of rule attempts to assign a rating to a boat base on measurements. A handicap is assigned based on the rating. the CCA rule was used for years. The IOR rule was created to rate *existing* boats more fairly (it did a pretty good job). As soon as the designers got into it, they stopped trying to build fast boats. They instead built boats that where faster than the IOR rule predicts. You might have a boat that was slow for its size, but fast for its rating. Designing to the rule perverted the boats and created an IOR type. IMS was developed to replace IOR. The program used to rate the boats was secret so the designers couldn't create rule beaters like they did under IOR. It didn't take long for the designer to figure out what made a boat fast for it's rating under IMS and has created an IMS type. PHRF handicaps are called ratings because sailors are used to thinking that way. Under CCA, IOR and IMS your boats rating determined the handicap. When you call a PHRF handicap a rating, people assume that the PHRF rule assigns handicaps the same way that the other systems do. PHRF is like a system that has looked at the relationship between height and scoring in basketball and assigns a handicap based on that data (proven performance). IMS, and Americap try to predict how a player of a given height will score and assign a handicap based on prediction. What sounds fairer to you?
