Handicap Divisions

[wjemather]

Proving the WHS doesn't do as it claims which is what I said in the first place.

Your misunderstanding doesn't prove anything.

 

[bobmac]

Your misunderstanding doesn't prove anything.

The WHS claim to have created ''a level playing field for all amateurs''.
They then advise clubs to have divisions because the field isn't level.

Where am I going wrong?

 

[wjemather]

The WHS claim to have created ''a level playing field for all amateurs''.
They then advise clubs to have divisions because the field isn't level.

Where am I going wrong?

You are misrepresenting aims/objectives/purpose as a claim that it successfully achieves them in all scenarios. There are fundamental and unavoidable limitations of all handicap systems (especially in (very) large fields with wide dispersions of handicaps) - these have been covered already.

EG/CONGU and WHS are not the same organisation. The former's mandated allowances mean that equity is not maintained in (very) large fields (WHS actually recommends adjusting allowances according to field size) so divisions are recommended to mitigate this.

 

[bobmac]

Interesting how you've gone from ''fields that are not small'' to ''larger fields'' and now you're up to ''very large fields''

In my experience, the handicap system does not create a level playing field and the lack of net trophies in my display cabinet after almost 50 years of Cat I golf proves that to be the case.
So you'll forgive me for getting a bit peeved when I see people claim that the field is even but only if it's a small field.

 

[Swango1980]

Interesting how you've gone from ''fields that are not small'' to ''larger fields'' and now you're up to ''very large fields''

In my experience, the handicap system does not create a level playing field and the lack of net trophies in my display cabinet after almost 50 years of Cat I golf proves that to be the case.
So you'll forgive me for getting a bit peeved when I see people claim that the field is even but only if it's a small field.

Perhaps you are not truly a "Cat 1" golfer anymore, but a vanity handicap golfer?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Checked our comp handbook. The field is divided into two Divisions if the field size is greater than 60 - and this is done for prize purposes only. The actual scored competition is always a single field.

 

[wjemather]

Interesting how you've gone from ''fields that are not small'' to ''larger fields'' and now you're up to ''very large fields''

In my experience, the handicap system does not create a level playing field and the lack of net trophies in my display cabinet after almost 50 years of Cat I golf proves that to be the case.
So you'll forgive me for getting a bit peeved when I see people claim that the field is even but only if it's a small field.

Context is everything. Maybe it wasn't clear, but "small fields" referred to WHS course handicaps before allowances are applied.

For almost all of your 50 years, you had a handicap system that favoured low handicappers, and quite strongly in earlier years. Maybe factors other than the handicap system prevented you from winning?

Anyway we all have different experiences and attitudes. I've managed to win 6 nett trophies in the last 15 years (a lot fewer than I have scratch, but still more than my fair share in handicap competition), and been placed in more than a dozen others; all with a handicap of below scratch, scratch, and just above scratch; and one of those wins (the club nett championship) was since WHS came in.

 

[jim8flog]

Interesting how you've gone from ''fields that are not small'' to ''larger fields'' and now you're up to ''very large fields''

In my experience, the handicap system does not create a level playing field and the lack of net trophies in my display cabinet after almost 50 years of Cat I golf proves that to be the case.

I think this is part of the problem you are only talking about your experience. Having spent over 10 years on a handicap and comps committee I have seen otherwise

My own experience is that I was very close to cat 1, low of 5.4 with many years between that and 6.5 I have got quite a few trophies in my cabinet from those years.

 

[bobmac]

I think this is part of the problem you are only talking about your experience.

That's all I can do.
During my time in the RAF, I was lucky to play golf all over the place and was a member of around a dozen clubs all over the country and my findings were always the same.

At one club, if you wanted to enter the gross comp, you had to pay twice, once for the nett comp (compulsory) and then again for the gross comp. At several other clubs there were no gross comps at all and it was at one of these clubs (I wont mention which one but it's a links course just off J21 M5) where on a tricky, windy monthly medal I scored 16 pars and 2 birdies and won nothing. Level playing field my ar elbow.

Most people have no idea how much time and effort it takes to get down to 2 or 3 handicap and to then see all your efforts come up short against someone who can barely break 90 is disheartening to say the least.
That was the last medal I played there.
So when someone tells me the handicap system favours the lower handicaps, that's rubbish in my opinion.

 

[wjemather]

Most people have no idea how much time and effort it takes to get down to 2 or 3 handicap and to then see all your efforts come up short against someone who can barely break 90 is disheartening to say the least.
That was the last medal I played there.
So when someone tells me the handicap system favours the lower handicaps, that's rubbish in my opinion.

Time and effort have never been a factor in handicapping - some manage to get to and maintain low single figures or better with very little effort (e.g. me), whereas others will never get close to single figures regardless of how much time and effort they spend on lessons and practice.

If you understand the system and it's purpose, losing to a higher handicapper is no more disheartening than losing to a plus handicapper. What is disheartening though, is how many (very) low handicap golfers still think they have a divine right to beat all golfers of lesser ability in handicap competition.

WHS doesn't, but that handicap systems have historically favoured better players is an indisputable fact. They were explicitly designed that way.

 

[RichA]

Our current handicap champ is one of the lower HI players.
Our lowest 2 HI golfers shared most of the Stableford prizes this year.
It's not fair on us mid-handicap golfers because I didn't win any.

 

[bobmac]

What is disheartening though, is how many (very) low handicap golfers still think they have a divine right to beat all golfers of lesser ability in handicap competition.

I hope that wasn't aimed at me as I never said I had a right (divine or otherwise) to beat all golfers of a lesser ability.
I just ask for a chance.

WHS doesn't, but that handicap systems have historically favoured better players is an indisputable fact.

And yet, here I am disputing it.

 

[rulefan]

I hope that wasn't aimed at me as I never said I had a right (divine or otherwise) to beat all golfers of a lesser ability.
I just ask for a chance.


And yet, here I am disputing it.

Both the other major handicap systems in the world (US & Oz) had a 'Bonus for excellence' factor built in. This has been replicated in the WHS with the 95% adjustment to the Playing Handicap.

 

[Backsticks]

Most people have no idea how much time and effort it takes to get down to 2 or 3 handicap and to then see all your efforts come up short against someone who can barely break 90 is disheartening to say the least.
That was the last medal I played there.

Is it not your own thinking and expectation is flawed here ? You include 'can barely break 90' as a factor in your rationale. But that is entirely irrelevant. Handicap competitions are nothing to do with effort to improve, golf level, nor the gross score of any player.

Disheartening would be more understandable if despite all the time and effort put in to getting down to 2 or 3, someone put in less effort and got to plus and always beats you. But you are expecting some reward or satisfaction the playing against 90 shooters is not designed to give you.

 

[bobmac]

I'm out.

 

[Backsticks]

I'm out.

Why ? Do you seriously believe that the chances of winning handicap competitions should relate to effort or handicap ?
If so, and there are other low hcs thinking the same, then that is why low hcs are choosing not to play handicapped competition - a complete misunderstanding of the principle of handicap.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Why ? Do you seriously believe that the chances of winning handicap competitions should relate to effort or handicap ?
If so, and there are other low hcs thinking the same, then that is why low hcs are choosing not to play handicapped competition - a complete misunderstanding of the principle of handicap.

I think the handicap system should be weighted towards the lower end. Excellent should be rewarded, it might encourage players to get lower rather than manage their HI up!

 

[IanMcC]

I'm out.

Good. Go and play at one of your many 'memberships across the country', and stop bleating.

 

[Backsticks]

I think the handicap system should be weighted towards the lower end. Excellent should be rewarded, it might encourage players to get lower rather than manage their HI up!

Why not weight it towards the higher end, so that those who mightnt get as much satisfaction from playing well as lower HIs at least get some reward from winning ?

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Why not weight it towards the higher end, so that those who mightnt get as much satisfaction from playing well as lower HIs at least get some reward from winning ?

Why would we want to reward people for not playing well? That doesn’t make any sense and would further just encourage some to manipulate their HC to be higher.

Weighting towards lower HC might help to combat banditry and rewards lower gross scores.

Or is golf no longer about shooting the lowest score?