Changes to WHS in April 2024

[Crow]

It's the improving golfer that cleans up, by their very nature thier handicap will tend to be higher as we improve the most when we start out and as the handicap comes down so improvements and handicap drops become smaller and smaller.

This is why so many people winge about high handicappers winning everything, it has very little to do with their handicap being low or high.


I'm always surprised that after so many years of playing, most low handicappers fail to recognise this, or maybe they just like a good moan, or maybe they think that they're entitled to win more than their fair share of completions?

 

[Swango1980]

I'm 4.3 and the majority of the time I don't even score particularly close to my handicap. Very, very rarely do I score a 4-pointer.

In my 20 scores there are only two below 4.3. The other 6 of my best 8 range from 4.5 to 6.2.
10% of the time I have played below my current handicap.

My anecdotal story is that I am wasting my time in the club handicap knockout. Had a bit of a chance when shots were 75% of difference.
I've won the scratch knockout 3 times and been runner-up twice.
Overall, I've not much to whinge about.

How many rounds do you generally need to play to get to final and win? About 5 maybe? If all golfers had an even chance to win, would that give everyone a 3% chance of winning?

They are very low odds, so most of those golfers may well go in thinking their odds of winning are low. Maybe the lower guys just perceive it as that much more difficult as they are the ones giving shots?

 

[AussieKB]

It's the improving golfer that cleans up, by their very nature thier handicap will tend to be higher as we improve the most when we start out and as the handicap comes down so improvements and handicap drops become smaller and smaller.

This is why so many people winge about high handicappers winning everything, it has very little to do with their handicap being low or high.


I'm always surprised that after so many years of playing, most low handicappers fail to recognise this, or maybe they just like a good moan, or maybe they think that they're entitled to win more than their fair share of completions?

At the moment I play a lot of Vet events and guess what...it is the high handicappers winning....strange that.

 

[Crow]

At the moment I play a lot of Vet events and guess what...it is the high handicappers winning....strange that.

They're making gains by switching from their old Ping Eye 2 clubs to the latest tech.

And perhaps there are a lot more high handicap than low handicap Vets in those comps, so they're statistically more likely to win?

Oh no, that can't be though, the whole system must be skewed against low cappers.

 

[Voyager EMH]

The same applies to all players regardless of their handicap, unless they are (rapidly) improving.

It does not apply to all players, because there are different types of golfer with regard to how their handicap works.
I will generalise, or stereotype, a fairly common type of golfer at my club as this,
Plays a lot of golf. Way more than me.
Plays mostly social golf.
Plays about 5 or 6 qualifiers a year, but enters all matchplays, betterballs, AmAm etc as these are "much more fun".
Says he doesn't really like singles strokeplay club comps much - "I never seem to do well in them, I prefer other formats."
Pays little attention to how the handicap system works, but manages to maintain a handicap that he feels he can play to most of the time in social golf.
If he makes 36 points or more 50% of the time in social golf, then he feels his handicap is about right.
5-day trip to Turkey or Portugal with mates is high spot of the year.
Weekends away to St Mellion etc are also undertaken.
Really enjoys "playing well" on these trips.
Really nice chap, great company, loves golf - I am simply very unlikely to beat him in singles matchplay, because I'm a different type of golfer.
I have to play in my best 15% region to play to my handicap and he in about his best 40% to play to his.
He does not address his mind to his qualifying scores, as he has convinced himself that he is not very interested in that type of golf. "Its a bit boring in a way."

 

[Deleted member 29109]

At the moment I play a lot of Vet events and guess what...it is the high handicappers winning....strange that.

Play better!

 

[wjemather]

It does not apply to all players, because there are different types of golfer with regard to how their handicap works.
I will generalise, or stereotype, a fairly common type of golfer at my club as this,
Plays a lot of golf. Way more than me.
Plays mostly social golf.
Plays about 5 or 6 qualifiers a year, but enters all matchplays, betterballs, AmAm etc as these are "much more fun".
Says he doesn't really like singles strokeplay club comps much - "I never seem to do well in them, I prefer other formats."
Pays little attention to how the handicap system works, but manages to maintain a handicap that he feels he can play to most of the time in social golf.
If he makes 36 points or more 50% of the time in social golf, then he feels his handicap is about right.
5-day trip to Turkey or Portugal with mates is high spot of the year.
Weekends away to St Mellion etc are also undertaken.
Really enjoys "playing well" on these trips.
Really nice chap, great company, loves golf - I am simply very unlikely to beat him in singles matchplay, because I'm a different type of golfer.
I have to play in my best 15% region to play to my handicap and he in about his best 40% to play to his.
He does not address his mind to his qualifying scores, as he has convinced himself that he is not very interested in that type of golf. "Its a bit boring in a way."

Ok, so people who are blatantly manipulating their handicap are also excluded, and your handicap committee needs to get involved with these individuals.

 

[Swango1980]

It does not apply to all players, because there are different types of golfer with regard to how their handicap works.
I will generalise, or stereotype, a fairly common type of golfer at my club as this,
Plays a lot of golf. Way more than me.
Plays mostly social golf.
Plays about 5 or 6 qualifiers a year, but enters all matchplays, betterballs, AmAm etc as these are "much more fun".
Says he doesn't really like singles strokeplay club comps much - "I never seem to do well in them, I prefer other formats."
Pays little attention to how the handicap system works, but manages to maintain a handicap that he feels he can play to most of the time in social golf.
If he makes 36 points or more 50% of the time in social golf, then he feels his handicap is about right.
5-day trip to Turkey or Portugal with mates is high spot of the year.
Weekends away to St Mellion etc are also undertaken.
Really enjoys "playing well" on these trips.
Really nice chap, great company, loves golf - I am simply very unlikely to beat him in singles matchplay, because I'm a different type of golfer.
I have to play in my best 15% region to play to my handicap and he in about his best 40% to play to his.
He does not address his mind to his qualifying scores, as he has convinced himself that he is not very interested in that type of golf. "Its a bit boring in a way."

Sounds like you have a rubbish handicap secretary, or nobody is presenting them the evidence, in a similar way you have provided us.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Ok, so people who are blatantly manipulating their handicap are also excluded, and your handicap committee needs to get involved with these individuals.

That could involve members of the handicap committee losing some of their best friends, who are very likeable chaps, that they've known for some time.
Very hard to watch every shot a player hits in a qualifying comp and say he deliberately played a few shots poorly. I wouldn't want to be the accuser.
Some people just don't enjoy individual strokeplay club comps. Hard to play your best when you don't enjoy it, I imagine.
There's so many players like this, it would be hard to pick out which ones to scrutinise first. I wouldn't want to do that either.
That type of player doesn't win board comps very often, because they don't enter many - so not a big deal for most people to care about much - including me.
I enjoy the way I play - they enjoy the way they play. Not all the same type of golfer - is the way I see it. Not really too bothered about it.
Not played in the handicap knockout for several years. Not bothered about that either.
No one really keeps track of who won £2 how often in social golf, but most of us know who the "good partner" is when the balls get thrown up on the first tee.
One of the reasons I've been reluctant to play for the seniors team. Someone gets me as a "crap partner" in comparison. Don't want to be a burden.
Live-and-let-live has its merits to a certain extent.

 

[rulefan]

The following is from a CONGU document published some years ago. Despite the abolishment of Categories I don't believe there is any reason to think the same relative conclusion is not as relevant now.


The analysis covers 750 club handicap competitions reported in the Herald in the months May to September. The competitions selected had a minimum field size of 75 competitors.

All competitions were evaluated as ‘open’ i.e. there was one overall winner of the competition irrespective of handicap.
The winners of the 750 competitions were grouped into the four handicap categories. The distribution of entrants and winners by handicap category is shown below:






Further:
Cat.1 players typically score in the range 2 below to 6 above their handicap with a mean score of around 2 above the CSS.
Cat.4 players has a wider spread and a mean nett differential of 5/6 strokes above the CSS, compared to 2 strokes above CSS for Cat.1 as previously identified.

This demonstrates that handicapping is not strictly a ‘level playing field’ and that the CONGU handicapping system, as in all major handicapping systems, incorporates a ‘bonus for excellence’ in favour of the lower handicap players. The reason for this is that Category 1 players are set a more challenging examination each time they play i.e. the Buffer Zone for a Cat.1 player is one stroke compared to four for the Cat.4 player. In addition, handicap reductions for Cat.1 are 0.1 of a stroke for each shot below the CSS in contrast to 0.4 per shot for Cat. 4 players.
It is worth re-iterating that each time a scratch player takes part in a stroke play competition his expected score is not to his handicap (i.e. nett differential of zero) but to two strokes above his handicap. In contrast if a Cat.4 player plays to five/six strokes above the CSS that is no more, or no less, than his expected performance.

 

[wjemather]

That could involve members of the handicap committee losing some of their best friends, who are very likeable chaps, that they've known for some time.
Very hard to watch every shot a player hits in a qualifying comp and say he deliberately played a few shots poorly. I wouldn't want to be the accuser.
Some people just don't enjoy individual strokeplay club comps. Hard to play your best when you don't enjoy it, I imagine.
There's so many players like this, it would be hard to pick out which ones to scrutinise first. I wouldn't want to do that either.
That type of player doesn't win board comps very often, because they don't enter many - so not a big deal for most people to care about much - including me.
I enjoy the way I play - they enjoy the way they play. Not all the same type of golfer - is the way I see it. Not really too bothered about it.
Not played in the handicap knockout for several years. Not bothered about that either.
No one really keeps track of who won £2 how often in social golf, but most of us know who the "good partner" is when the balls get thrown up on the first tee.
One of the reasons I've been reluctant to play for the seniors team. Someone gets me as a "crap partner" in comparison. Don't want to be a burden.
Live-and-let-live has its merits to a certain extent.

That's just pathetic. They either need to do their job dispassionately (i.e. by not allowing their mates to get away with cheating) or stand down and be replaced by people who will.

 

[Voyager EMH]

That's just pathetic. They either need to do their job dispassionately (i.e. by not allowing their mates to get away with cheating) or stand down and be replaced by people who will.

Ah, "cheating".

You can't use that word unless you can present very good evidence at the time you use it.

Attempting to compile convincing evidence - what a waste of time, generally. And who has the time or the desire?
So a chap has a handicap that is 1.8 or 2.3 above someone of equal ability. Must be millions of them out there?

"Might be worth some scrutiny" would be more polite, but could be viewed as pathetic use of a spurkle in excrement.
By the time you've finished the two year study into an individual - things will have changed.

I don't have a problem with no one "wanting to go down those routes", because I wouldn't care to.

 

[wjemather]

Ah, "cheating".

You can't use that word unless you can present very good evidence at the time you use it.

Attempting to compile convincing evidence - what a waste of time, generally. And who has the time or the desire?
So a chap has a handicap that is 1.8 or 2.3 above someone of equal ability. Must be millions of them out there?

"Might be worth some scrutiny" would be more polite, but could be viewed as pathetic use of a spurkle in excrement.
By the time you've finished the two year study into an individual - things will have changed.

I don't have a problem with no one "wanting to go down those routes", because I wouldn't care to.

You described people deliberately manipulating their handicaps so they can play to it 50% of the time, while not submitting scores for handicapping. That's cheating. That you don't mind being cheated by them, and think it's not worth the hassle of doing anything about it, is irrelevant.

You didn't describe people inadvertently having handicaps that are too high, for which education (and the submission of more scores) is the remedy, but also requires intervention by the handicap committee.

 

[D-S]

Just to get back to the 2024 changes rather than matchplay under WHS, if, as is likely, only one score should/must be recorded in future in 4BB competitions , I wonder if clubs will only require one entry per partnership in the 2s club if there is only one chance.

 

[Swango1980]

Ah, "cheating".

You can't use that word unless you can present very good evidence at the time you use it.

Attempting to compile convincing evidence - what a waste of time, generally. And who has the time or the desire?
So a chap has a handicap that is 1.8 or 2.3 above someone of equal ability. Must be millions of them out there?

"Might be worth some scrutiny" would be more polite, but could be viewed as pathetic use of a spurkle in excrement.
By the time you've finished the two year study into an individual - things will have changed.

I don't have a problem with no one "wanting to go down those routes", because I wouldn't care to.

I'm a touch confused. You've seemed to present a compelling case that some are playing golf with inflated handicaps compared to their ability, thus enabling them to have an unfair advantage against low handicappers. And then you've started to defend these higher handicappers and their actions, and reasons to not submit scores. Such as the fact they are jolly nice chaps

So, I'm not sure where your own personal problem lies?

Should the system just use 75% again, or lower, to protect others against these chaps who don't submit scores and who don't get spotted by Committees? Hardly fair on other players with high handicaps who submit scores frequently, and aren't considered bandits.

If players refuse to submit scores because they like to shoot good scores in rounds that don't count for handicap, they are cheating. I don't care how nice they are or how many puppies they save, it is still cheating the system. They might as well get down to a proper handicap, and then doctor their score at end to make round 2 or 3 shots better. It is essentially what they are doing anyway

 

[Voyager EMH]

I'm a touch confused. You've seemed to present a compelling case that some are playing golf with inflated handicaps compared to their ability, thus enabling them to have an unfair advantage against low handicappers. And then you've started to defend these higher handicappers and their actions, and reasons to not submit scores. Such as the fact they are jolly nice chaps

So, I'm not sure where your own personal problem lies?

Should the system just use 75% again, or lower, to protect others against these chaps who don't submit scores and who don't get spotted by Committees? Hardly fair on other players with high handicaps who submit scores frequently, and aren't considered bandits.

If players refuse to submit scores because they like to shoot good scores in rounds that don't count for handicap, they are cheating. I don't care how nice they are or how many puppies they save, it is still cheating the system. They might as well get down to a proper handicap, and then doctor their score at end to make round 2 or 3 shots better. It is essentially what they are doing anyway

I thought that I made it perfectly clear that I do not have a problem.
I accept there are different types of golfer out there who seek enjoyment from the game in a way that differs from my approach to the game.

The handicap system, the statistics, the theory behind it all - all fine. "Fairness" of the system is great.
None of those things can account for the fact that we are not all golfing automatons with the same approach.
I am not advocating any changes to the system to "cure" something that I do not see as a "problem" that needs solving.
I accept the system is a good one as it is.
I accept a number of people are not as interested as I have been in getting their handicaps down to it's lowest ever. I do not view this as cheating. I do not feel cheated.
I've always viewed handicap qualifying comps as "real" golf and social golf as a form of practice.
Others seem to take a different view and see social golf as their main form of golfing enjoyment and handicap qualifying comps a necessary duty to endure that does not give anywhere near the same level of enjoyment. With this approach, which is their choice, I accept that the motivation in handicap qualifying games might not be the same as others.
No system will ever be able to account for this, I strongly suspect.

 

[Crow]

That could involve members of the handicap committee losing some of their best friends, who are very likeable chaps, that they've known for some time.

Would best friends fall out just because members of the handicap committee decide to educate a best friend about how the handicap system is supposed to work and what their obligations are?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Would best friends fall out just because members of the handicap committee decide to educate a best friend about how the handicap system is supposed to work and what their obligations are?

They certainly would.
No one likes having their integrity brought under question. A battle of wills would be a likely outcome.
There have always been "bandits". Calling them "cheats" right-out-loud is quite a different thing. It has to be backed up with recognisable evidence.
Docking 1 or 2 shots by "observed general play" was done many many years ago - caused a lot of bad feeling and resentment.

 

[Crow]

They certainly would.
No one likes having their integrity brought under question. A battle of wills would be a likely outcome.
There have always been "bandits". Calling them "cheats" right-out-loud is quite a different thing. It has to be backed up with recognisable evidence.
Docking 1 or 2 shots by "observed general play" was done many many years ago - caused a lot of bad feeling and resentment.

It isn't calling them cheats, it's saying that they need to put more cards in, if they want to jump to that conclusion then that's their problem.

 

[clubchamp98]

They certainly would.
No one likes having their integrity brought under question. A battle of wills would be a likely outcome.
There have always been "bandits". Calling them "cheats" right-out-loud is quite a different thing. It has to be backed up with recognisable evidence.
Docking 1 or 2 shots by "observed general play" was done many many years ago - caused a lot of bad feeling and resentment.

Unfortunately the system allows this to happen without players doing anything “ wrong”

As long as they have a best 8 from 20 they have abided by the rules!