95%?

[SammmeBee]

Based on what because it’s certainly not something that I have witnessed in 8 plus years doing comps - if anything it’s the mid handicaps that clear up as opposed to high handicaps. There is no need for 95% - they have already given you a handicap for that course - it’s supposed to now be a fairer reflection in regards your play so why then add further adjustments to try and manufacture some further levelling when the handicap is supposed to do that.

Easy courses - mid handicaps will clear up

Better/harder courses - will always favour the low handicaps......

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Easy courses - mid handicaps will clear up

Better/harder courses - will always favour the low handicaps......

That’s pretty much my experience over the years - they brought in these high handicaps to supposedly encourage and then just add allowances that punish them - just stick with a celling of 28 if that’s the case then

 

[Swango1980]

Based on what because it’s certainly not something that I have witnessed in 8 plus years doing comps - if anything it’s the mid handicaps that clear up as opposed to high handicaps. There is no need for 95% - they have already given you a handicap for that course - it’s supposed to now be a fairer reflection in regards your play so why then add further adjustments to try and manufacture some further levelling when the handicap is supposed to do that.

How many competitions in the last 8 years experience have used the World Handicap System!?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

How many competitions in the last 8 years experience have used the World Handicap System!?

whats the relevance ? No clubs in the UK have played comps using the system so how can anything be judged that requires an adjustment that punishes high handicaps

 

[rulefan]

Based on what because it’s certainly not something that I have witnessed in 8 plus years doing comps - if anything it’s the mid handicaps that clear up as opposed to high handicaps. There is no need for 95% - they have already given you a handicap for that course - it’s supposed to now be a fairer reflection in regards your play so why then add further adjustments to try and manufacture some further levelling when the handicap is supposed to do that.

Mid handicappers win more often because they typically have the largest proportion of entrants. That does not mean that a particular mid capper will win a lot of comps.
It does mean that an unspecified high capper will win more often than the number of entrants in the field would suggest.

 

[Swango1980]

whats the relevance ? No clubs in the UK have played comps using the system so how can anything be judged that requires an adjustment that punishes high handicaps

How can anything be judged?? Exactly. Yet, you seem perfectly happy to do so. What was the point in mentioning your 8 years experience, when it has no relevance to the new handicapping system.

You do realise the course handicaps players have now are not the same as the handicaps players had under Congu? At my club, players who had single figure handicaps now have a course handicap on average 0.3 higher. But, 30+ handicappers have a course handicap 3.5 shots higher. The higher the congu handicap, the bigger the average increase a player gets to their course handicap in average.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Mid handicappers win more often because they typically have the largest proportion of entrants. That does not mean that a particular mid capper will win a lot of comps.
It does mean that an unspecified high capper will win more often than the number of entrants in the field would suggest.

What are you classing as a high handicapper these days ? Above 19/20 ?

For example we have had no one above the handicap of 18 win a competition in 18 months - we have had 4BBB high handicaps win but not singles

 

[Ethan]

Based on what because it’s certainly not something that I have witnessed in 8 plus years doing comps - if anything it’s the mid handicaps that clear up as opposed to high handicaps. There is no need for 95% - they have already given you a handicap for that course - it’s supposed to now be a fairer reflection in regards your play so why then add further adjustments to try and manufacture some further levelling when the handicap is supposed to do that.

It is a basic statistical truism that variability increases as numbers get larger. That is why both CONGU and (USGA) WHS systems are zeroed around something better than average, this reduces the impact of variability where it matters, on the better than expected end. There are, of course some fairly consistent high handicappers and some wildly inconsistent lower handicaps, but in a big data set, variability increases with handicap.

WHS and CONGU are both zeroed around similar pivot points, in the case of WHS, around the 4th or 5th (midpoint of best 8) best of 20 scores, and CONGU used an asymmetrical push-pull system which tended to end up around the same place.

 

[rulefan]

How many competitions in the last 8 years experience have used the World Handicap System!?

The principle of 95% (93% and 96%) has been used in Australia, Canada and the USA for many years. Between them they play well over 50% of all the golf played in the world. Taking thousands of legitimately scored rounds from there and Europe, the authorities decided that 95% was the fairest. They also determining that in match play the bias was in the opposite direction, so moved the adjustment from the Index to the Playing Handicap for stroke play.

 

[rulefan]

What are you classing as a high handicapper these days ? Above 19/20 ?

For example we have had no one above the handicap of 18 win a competition in 18 months - we have had 4BBB high handicaps win but not singles

Perhaps it will change next year

What proportion of your competitions are stroke play eliminators for KO rounds? How many are straight medals?

But the number of competitions played at one club is hardly significant in the scheme of things.

 

[IanM]

Made my first trip in months to my home club this morning... our club pro said the 95% was because there were insufficient steps in the process! (he was kidding)

Once you've navigated to the page to discover today's HI, you need to look at the chart on the wall (Newport has done a grand job with these) - remember what tee you are off and your gender. Of course is that birth gender? I guess you get more shots if you identify as a woman... maybe the club will face legal action for "assuming a player's gender." Well who knows?

....after all that and the impending court case.... lets add another step. 90% is too easy to work out... so lets make it 95% Shame they didn't make it 91.74%

 

[Swango1980]

Made my first trip in months to my home club this morning... our club pro said the 95% was because there were insufficient steps in the process! (he was kidding)

Once you've navigated to the page to discover today's HI, you need to look at the chart on the wall (Newport has done a grand job with these) - remember what tee you are off and your gender. Of course is that birth gender? I guess you get more shots if you identify as a woman... maybe the club will face legal action for "assuming a player's gender." Well who knows?

....after all that and the impending court case.... lets add another step. 90% is too easy to work out... so lets make it 95% Shame they didn't make it 91.74%

You need to post that scenario to Good Morning Britain, so Piers Morgan can have his say

 

[jim8flog]

Made my first trip in months to my home club this morning... our club pro said the 95% was because there were insufficient steps in the process! (he was kidding)

Once you've navigated to the page to discover today's HI, you need to look at the chart on the wall (Newport has done a grand job with these) - remember what tee you are off and your gender. Of course is that birth gender? I guess you get more shots if you identify as a woman... maybe the club will face legal action for "assuming a player's gender." Well who knows?

....after all that and the impending court case.... lets add another step. 90% is too easy to work out... so lets make it 95% Shame they didn't make it 91.74%

All you really have to remember is - have I submitted a qualifying score since I last played? If no - am I playing the the same course and tee as the last time I played? - if yes nothing has changed since the last time I played.

 

[Swango1980]

All you really have to remember is - have I submitted a qualifying score since I last played? If no - am I playing the the same course and tee as the last time I played? - if yes nothing has changed since the last time I played.

Except that there could be a change, as the score from last time you played could have changed your Index for the next time you play.

 

[jim8flog]

Except that there could be a change, as the score from last time you played could have changed your Index for the next time you play.

It would not have changed if a player did not submit a qualifying score.

i.e a score from a qualifying competition or a preregistered social round