Handicap Adjustment... what would you expect a handicap secretary to do (if anything)

[Swango1980]

Statistically, 33% is about right. Various studies have been done to show it. Howdidido compiled thousands of scores. In medals, 26% of rounds were within buffer, in Stableford that went up to 31%.

It makes reasonable sense. Even if you accept in 10 rounds you will have around 6-7 0.1 increases, it only takes potentially one round of the other 3-4 to get a good cut (a cat 3 golfer gets 2 better than css, they get cut 0.6 straight away. Obviously, there will be variations. Some golfers are getting consistently better and will shoot a lot of good scores, others will be in decline and will get 10 0.1 increases.

I can't remember what the annual review does when it flags players for decrease, but it certainly flags players who get a good amount of scores within buffer. I certainly wouldn't expect a usual golfer to play within buffer more than 50% unless they are in very good form, or maybe a very consistent cat 1 player?

 

[DickInShorts]

Current Uk handicaps are a measure of potential - as opposed to WHS which is nearer to average.
I’ve seen stats that show under CONGU players are expected to play to - or under - handicap only one in five qualifying rounds.

 

[rulie]

Current Uk handicaps are a measure of potential - as opposed to WHS which is nearer to average.
I’ve seen stats that show under CONGU players are expected to play to - or under - handicap only one in five qualifying rounds.

Do you have any facts to support this statement about WHS? The WHS uses the average of the best 8 of the last 20 differentials to determine handicap. I wouldn't say that the average of the best 8 are close to the average of the last 20! The WHS handicap is also a measure of potential, not average.
As an example, the average of my last 20 differentials (all normalized to slope 113) is 7.4, whereas the average of the best 8 is 3.9, a significant difference.

 

[rulefan]

The words used in the WHS spiel are:

.... to ensure a Handicap Index continues to reflect a player's demonstrated ability.

 

[Swango1980]

Current Uk handicaps are a measure of potential - as opposed to WHS which is nearer to average.
I’ve seen stats that show under CONGU players are expected to play to - or under - handicap only one in five qualifying rounds.

As others have said, WHS is also meant to reflect potential, not average. A handicap that reflected average would end amateur golf as we know it, as a high handicapper would nearly always win a comp, low handicappers virtually no chance at all (as a high handicapper will have rounds much higher and lower than their average than a better player against their average).

 

[2blue]

Says who ?

What constitutes “playing to your handicap” ? Does it include returning a score in the buffer zone ?

Are you suggesting that, at the end of 10 qualifying rounds of golf, a handicap should have gone up 0.7 (less any adjustments for playing better than handicap in any of the other 3 rounds).
Dangerous statement in my opinion.

I guess if you just think about it for a minute.... if you're in buffer does your H/cap change??.... No!!..... There for you've just played to it..... dangerous or not... that's the situation.

 

[Colin L]

Yes. End of 2016 season till Sept 2018.

Thanks for clarifying. That means Post #20 applies, not Post #8.

 

[Grant85]

A few points... I certainly agree that your handicap should be your performance on a good day. Hence why I was asking the question if I should / would get a cut.

With regards to difference between WHS and CONGU... I think for people who are playing regularly, there probably won't be that much difference. Remember the WHS will take your best 8 scores and multiply the average by 0.93. That would reduce someone averaging 90, down to 83.7. I think this system will reduce a consistent higher handicapper much more than it would a lower handicapper, especially a volatile one.

Big differences will be the guys who cling onto a vanity handicap and only turn in 3 scores a year, which are nowhere near their current handicap.
Also the higher handicappers who are maintaining their handicap around a tough course. They will come down a few shots when slope is taken into account.

 

[duncan mackie]

A few points... I certainly agree that your handicap should be your performance on a good day. Hence why I was asking the question if I should / would get a cut.

With regards to difference between WHS and CONGU... I think for people who are playing regularly, there probably won't be that much difference. Remember the WHS will take your best 8 scores and multiply the average by 0.93. That would reduce someone averaging 90, down to 83.7. I think this system will reduce a consistent higher handicapper much more than it would a lower handicapper, especially a volatile one.

Big differences will be the guys who cling onto a vanity handicap and only turn in 3 scores a year, which are nowhere near their current handicap.
Also the higher handicappers who are maintaining their handicap around a tough course. They will come down a few shots when slope is taken into account.

Up until your last sentence I was agreeing with everything ....
No basis for that bit at all.
(Personally I would see your scores as worthy of discussion at the AR, and the recommendation could go either way ie. 0 or -1

 

[Grant85]

Up until your last sentence I was agreeing with everything ....
No basis for that bit at all.
(Personally I would see your scores as worthy of discussion at the AR, and the recommendation could go either way ie. 0 or -1

Slope being taken into account will benefit higher handicappers far more around a tough course.
What am I missing?

 

[Colin L]

A few points... I certainly agree that your handicap should be your performance on a good day. Hence why I was asking the question if I should / would get a cut.

With regards to difference between WHS and CONGU... I think for people who are playing regularly, there probably won't be that much difference. Remember the WHS will take your best 8 scores and multiply the average by 0.93. That would reduce someone averaging 90, down to 83.7. I think this system will reduce a consistent higher handicapper much more than it would a lower handicapper, especially a volatile one.

Big differences will be the guys who cling onto a vanity handicap and only turn in 3 scores a year, which are nowhere near their current handicap.
Also the higher handicappers who are maintaining their handicap around a tough course. They will come down a few shots when slope is taken into account.

The bit I've highlighted in red. Where did that come from? The WHS does not average your total scores as such. The best 8 out of your 20 most recent desloped Score Differentials will be averaged. Score Differential is the difference between your gross score (adjusted to a maximum of a net double bogey at any hole) and the Course Rating. There's no change there apart from the names. Your current handicap is calculated on the difference between your gross adjusted differential and the SSS/CSS. SSS and Course Rating are the same. The big difference lies in the averaging system taking the place of our current ratchet system.

 

[Swango1980]

The bit I've highlighted in red. Where did that come from? The WHS does not average your total scores as such. The best 8 out of your 20 most recent Score Differentials will be averaged. Score Differential is the difference between your gross score (adjusted to a maximum of a net double bogey at any hole) and the Course Rating. There's no change there apart from the names. Your current handicap is calculated on the difference between your gross adjusted differential and the SSS/CSS. SSS and Course Rating are the same. The big difference lies in the averaging system taking the place of our current ratchet system.

I was asking myself that question as well, it all seemed OK until the 0.93 was mentioned, but thought I'd wait for someone who has had recent updates on WHS to respond in case I've missed a further update. I'll be at the seminar by England Golf at Woodhall Spa in February, so I am sure / hope it will all become crystal clear then.

 

[rulefan]

The bit I've highlighted in red.

Isn't that from the existing USGA system but 0.96? Australia had a similar adjustment of 0.93.
It was called a 'Bonus for Excellence'.

Edit:
I seem to remember it (0.93) was in the initial proposals but was removed because "it wasn't worth it"

 

[Colin L]

Isn't that from the existing USGA system? Australia had a similar adjustment of 0.96.
I think it was called a 'Bonus for Excellence'.

Could be - I had forgotten about that.

 

[rulefan]

Could be - I had forgotten about that.

See my just edited post.

 

[rulie]

Could be - I had forgotten about that.

That 0.93 caught my attention also. As I recall, the "excellence" factor has been totally eliminated.

 

[Swango1980]

That 0.93 caught my attention also. As I recall, the "excellence" factor has been totally eliminated.

Just reading up on this excellence factor. So, the point was, it would effectively reward lower handicap golfers. Interesting concept, as it means that better players have a higher chance of beating the less good players, particularly when the margin between their handicappers is greatest (with a 1 shot difference, the better player will win 53% of the time, with a 6 shot difference the better player would win 60% of the time).

Maybe controversial, but I like that idea. I'm all for giving every golfer of any ability a chance to win, but I don't see the harm in giving the better players a little bit more of an edge. After all, if you ever hear golfers complain about handicap differentials, it is always in the context of "I'm giving away far too many shots to make it fair" rather than "I'm not getting enough shots to make it fair".

 

[rulefan]

Why build in an advantage to the 'better' player for a handicap competition? The whole point of handicaps is to equalise all players' chances. Why would anyone want to enter a biased event?
Anyway its going soon.

CONGU (where there is no adjustment) has already shown that a lower capper will beat a higher 55% of the time in matchplay and that all cappers win stroke play events in proportion to the numbers of each category in the field

 

[duncan mackie]

Slope being taken into account will benefit higher handicappers far more around a tough course.
What am I missing?

Probably more what you are putting in than missing.

Slope reflects the relative difficulty, not the absolute difficulty.

However, reading your original sentence again I can see where you are coming from and agree your logic. Someone who has been consistently maintaining a high handicap on a course whose bogey rating is relatively high (and therefore has a high slope) is likely to see their initial handicap index drop a little quite quickly....however, this assumes that the translation process doesn't take this into account - which would be very flawed, for exactly this reason.
So, maybe it's this that you are missing (or that I'm assuming!), and we will just have to see.

 

[duncan mackie]

Why build in an advantage to the 'better' player for a handicap competition? The whole point of handicaps is to equalise all players' chances. Why would anyone want to enter a biased event?
Anyway its going soon.

CONGU (where there is no adjustment) has already shown that a lower capper will beat a higher 55% of the time in matchplay and that all cappers win stroke play events in proportion to the numbers of each category in the field

Not quite.....whilst stableford competition is a level playing field, medal competition has a built in advantage at the lower handicap end.