Handicap manipulation - how to address

[Colin L]

That's the first time I've hear of a town/contry dichotomy in handicapping! Can you tease that out with a bit more explanation, please. It seems to me that if your courses are rated consistently, location should not be a factor. Also, at your level of golf, the effect of slope ratings should be less than you are finding, I'd have thought. But it's not really possible to understand what you are describing without knowing your handicap index and the course ratings, pars and slope ratings of the courses you are talking about.

 

[clubchamp98]

That's the first time I've hear of a town/contry dichotomy in handicapping! Can you tease that out with a bit more explanation, please. It seems to me that if your courses are rated consistently, location should not be a factor. Also, at your level of golf, the effect of slope ratings should be less than you are finding, I'd have thought. But it's not really possible to understand what you are describing without knowing your handicap index and the course ratings, pars and slope ratings of the courses you are talking about.

I was about to ask that!

I would think it’s the condition the towns must have more money to spend on the course.
So Country course would be more rugged.

Just a guess .

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

1. The old system I thought worked, it upsets a lot of people when the winner on the day goes out a whole shot, I have seen this happen on numerous occasions, and the person who comes 2nd 3rd or lower losers a shot.

2. You can stand there and try to explain how the system works, but no one buys into it.

3. I know it’s all down to personal opinion, but I have yet to meet anyone on single figures say they are not getting screwed.

There is a lot of rubbish in your post as usual. But these three gems are the pick of it.

1. We’re going to need to call the custard test in on point 1. Given how many times you have said the winners of your comps are well into the 40 points. I don’t believe for one second that a player won a comp and their index went up a full shot.
Let’s see some evidence.

2. Who isn’t buying into it? I’d guess it’s mostly seniors or worsening players who feel they are no longer competitive. Most off the detractors seem to simply be having a hard time understanding WHS or just don’t like change.

3. Whereas, I’ve not met one who is openly hostile to it like some on here. In fact, I have yet to play with anyone else with a single digit handicap who has even mentioned WHS. We just get on with playing golf. Then again, most of them are in their 40s or much younger. So, maybe they haven’t reached the stage of maintaining low vanity caps yet.

 

[Voyager EMH]

There is a lot of rubbish in your post as usual. But these three gems are the pick of it.

1. We’re going to need to call the custard test in on point 1. Given how many times you have said the winners of your comps are well into the 40 points. I don’t believe for one second that a player won a comp and their index went up a full shot.
Let’s see some evidence.

That happened to me this year. Cold windy drizzly morning in May with placing on closely mown areas and zero run on fairways.
I holed out from 25 yards for a net eagle on stroke index 1, the third hole. Somehow hung on to 35 points to win a seniors comp with just over 30 entrants. I was the lowest handicap player in the field.
Lost my best round from last year and went up by 0.6. Index didn't go up a full shot, but my playing handicap did.

 

[D-S]

That happened to me this year. Cold windy drizzly morning in May with placing on closely mown areas and zero run on fairways.
I holed out from 25 yards for a net eagle on stroke index 1, the third hole. Somehow hung on to 35 points to win a seniors comp with just over 30 entrants. I was the lowest handicap player in the field.
Lost my best round from last year and went up by 0.6. Index didn't go up a full shot, but my playing handicap did.

Thus proving that low handicappers do sometimes win competitions.

 

[rulefan]

The reason I would be off scratch is that the slope and course rating is done by the US system.


I think the US system works OK in the cities of OZ but no way does the system work for regional OZ, and I have seen it a plenty.

The USGA Rating System predated WHS and was used by CONGU for many years (without using Slope for handicapping): although US and other visitors did have access to the information. Incidentally, the then men's English Golf Union used a slightly more primitive method for rating the CR only (SSS).

What system was used in OZ prior to WHS and when did OZ start implementing the USGA CR system?

Am I correct in thinking your concerns relate more to Course Rating rather than the technical aspects of WHS?

 

[Dunesman]

Are you suggesting that an imbalance has been deliberately built in?

Are you aware of the reason for and the effect of the stroke play handicap allowance of 95%?

Yes, and yes.

The 95% corrects some, but not all, of the advantage higher handicappers would have if competition was based only on the course handicap. But chosen in England to still slightly favour higher handicappers. This was not one of the 'benefits' trumpeted by England Golf in the change of systems. Other countries use different multipliers. As our contributor from Australia informs us, they use 93%. Other countries may well be using 89% or 91%. There is scope within WHS for local unions to choose this number, while still claiming full compliance with the WHS system. Open to his correction from him, but I think our same Aussie is reporting that even 93% retains a bias against low handicappers (and that the Australian association acknowledge this).

USA handicaps to seem to be off a different fundamental baseline, with mulligans etc probably having a downward influence on indexes, which may be why 95% works for them.

Prior to WHS, anecdote and data showed US hanidcaps were lower the British ones for the same standard of golf, and WHS was to address this. It would appear that even in this fundamental aim and headline for changing systems, WHS is a dramatic failure. Officialdom still has its head in the sand, citing new, peripheral data to claim success, like number of rounds recorded, and numbers of igolf members. Who remembers being sold the story that WHS would bring those benefits to English golfers ?

 

[Dunesman]

Thus proving that low handicappers do sometimes win competitions.

Nobody is disputing they can win. The point at issue is that they have a lower chance than higher handicappers.

 

[rulie]

IIRC, Golf Australia conducted a lot of studies and statistical analysis in the fairly recent past into competition results with the intent of understanding winning and handicaps. The goal was to make the probability of winning as even as possible across handicap groupings. They did make some changes to their system which was to eliminate/minimize the built-in bias for low handicappers (a “bonus for excellence”?) that was apparent in the analysis of results.

 

[Thintowin]

Where do I start.....I think the main problem is, ...

The main problem is that there is no confidence in it. So many articles about that. It's as plain as day. No need to discuss the details. There people on here who just love to win an argument on a detail. I'm not sure they understand the idea of competing at golf but they love competing in front of a screen.

 

[clubchamp98]

Thus proving that low handicappers do sometimes win competitions.

In bad weather off the back tees I agree when high handicappers can’t control their ball in the wind.
The quality ball strikers come to the top.

But it’s not like that all year and 35 pts won’t win much in summer.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

The main problem is that there is no confidence in it. So many articles about that. It's as plain as day. No need to discuss the details. There people on here who just love to win an argument on a detail. I'm not sure they understand the idea of competing at golf but they love competing in front of a screen.

If you love properly competing at golf, you’d be playing scratch comps and WHS wouldn’t matter.

Handicap comps are just pretending and stablefords are for the choppers.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

That happened to me this year. Cold windy drizzly morning in May with placing on closely mown areas and zero run on fairways.
I holed out from 25 yards for a net eagle on stroke index 1, the third hole. Somehow hung on to 35 points to win a seniors comp with just over 30 entrants. I was the lowest handicap player in the field.
Lost my best round from last year and went up by 0.6. Index didn't go up a full shot, but my playing handicap did.

But that was with 35 points. @AussieKB keeps telling us that his comps are won with 40+ points. Nobody has gone up a full shot after scoring 40+ points.

 

[Thintowin]

If you love properly competing at golf, you’d be playing scratch comps and WHS wouldn’t matter.

I have the ability to think of the collective rather than just myself. That's my burden to carry.

 

[wjemather]

The main problem is that there is no confidence in it. So many articles about that. It's as plain as day. No need to discuss the details. There people on here who just love to win an argument on a detail. I'm not sure they understand the idea of competing at golf but they love competing in front of a screen.

"The details" are the basis for any discussion or debate. If we were only interested in finding out people's bare opinions, we'd just have polls, and threads wouldn't make it past one or two pages.

 

[AussieKB]

The course I played was in the Country,
Par 72
Scratch 68
Slope 106
Length 5852 meters. 6437 yards
GA Handicap was 4.2
Daily handicap 0

I had 31 points, it was their Yearly Open.
Very tree lined and if you went off it was difficult to find the ball and more difficult to get it back on the fairway,
if you are have been in OZ bush you would know what I am talking about.

It is why I said the System does not work in Country towns, large Country towns is not a problem as the courses are more like the City with watered fairways etc.

Recent result at my old course which recently held the WA PGA Championship
Stroke comp
1st off 25 handicap was 61 nett lost 3 shots.
2nd off 14 handicap was 65 nett
3rd off 11 handicap was 65 nett
4th off 7 handicap was 66 nett

124 entries.

 

[bobmac]

Nobody is disputing they can win. The point at issue is that they have a lower chance than higher handicappers.

When was the last time anyone heard a higher handicap golfer complain about not being able to win a nett comp?

 

[wjemather]

When was the last time anyone heard a higher handicap golfer complain about not being able to win a nett comp?

Every week. There's nothing special about low handicappers - they're just more entitled and make sure everyone hears them complain.

 

[D-S]

The course I played was in the Country,
Par 72
Scratch 68
Slope 106
Length 5852 meters. 6437 yards
GA Handicap was 4.2
Daily handicap 0

I had 31 points, it was their Yearly Open.
Very tree lined and if you went off it was difficult to find the ball and more difficult to get it back on the fairway,
if you are have been in OZ bush you would know what I am talking about.

It is why I said the System does not work in Country towns, large Country towns is not a problem as the courses are more like the City with watered fairways etc.

Recent result at my old course which recently held the WA PGA Championship
Stroke comp
1st off 25 handicap was 61 nett lost 3 shots.
2nd off 14 handicap was 65 nett
3rd off 11 handicap was 65 nett
4th off 7 handicap was 66 nett

124 entries.

On the face of it and not knowing any details that sounds like a very strange course rating.
Length forms the vast majority of the CR and a course of over 6400 yards in the UK would almost always have a CR of over 71. There would be some odd factors to make the playing length shorter to reduce this considerably, for example if all the holes were downhill.
The slope of 106 suggests a wide open featureless track where it is difficult to get your ball into any trouble, certainly not tree lined and tough to find your balling off line.
Sounds odd to me and if it were my course I’d be questioning the rating.

 

[Colin L]

If you love properly competing at golf, you’d be playing scratch comps and WHS wouldn’t matter.

Handicap comps are just pretending and stablefords are for the choppers.

Arrogant, elitist, entitled, condescending, patronising, supercilious, dismissive, derogatory ....... and totally blind to the realities of amateur golf. For the fortunate few who develop into scratch and plus handicap amateurs and into professionals, the reality is that it is generally speaking club golf which has got them where they are. Where do the talented youngsters learn, practice and develop? Rather obviously on golf courses - over 550 in Scotland alone. And what do golf courses depend on for their existence? Equally obviously on the people who pay to play on them, tens of thousands of them in "the Home of Golf" alone. Millions worldwide. It goes without saying that we are not all scratch players, that the huge majority of us couldn't take part in a scratch competition, not just because the entry requirements are beyond us but also because humiliation and embarrassment are not desirable outcomes of a game of golf. But we are what keeps the sport alive; our competitions matter whether club competitions or a fourball matches with friends; and the competitions wouldn't be viable without handicaps.

Enjoy the rarified atmosphere of your golfing world but when you occasionally condescend to look down from those Olympian heights on us lesser golfing mortals, remember who is paying for the oxygen you need.