Handicap manipulation - how to address

[wjemather]

So why change systems then if you can’t make it equal.
It makes no sense to me to disadvantage the very people who try to get better at the game.

UHS had the same fundamental limitations as WHS but was intentionally skewed in favour of lower handicappers and in too many handicaps didn't reflect ability without substantial interference by the handicap committee.

And we're back to peddling the myths that lower handicappers try (practice) harder and the handicap system should reward their effort. The reward for effort is improvement and improvers will always have an advantage under any handicap system.

 

[wjemather]

How does me not being disadvantaged severely disadvantage the high handicappers.?

The simplest example is in large fields with significant numbers at each end of the handicap scale, where levelling the chance of winning severely reduces the chances of higher handicappers attaining a high finish.

 

[AussieKB]

Yep....best way to win is be inconsistent.....do not work on your game to become a better player.
what absolute tosh.

 

[Thintowin]

The simplest example is in large fields with significant numbers at each end of the handicap scale, where levelling the chance of winning severely reduces the chances of attaining a high finish for higher handicappers.

Why should a system that's supposed to support club competitions aim to be fair for players that don't put any effort into their game? Golf was, and should be, a game that helps people to learn about themselves as they improve. Eventually they get good enough to compete. WHS is putting an end to that by trying to give full 'registered golfer' credibility to anyone who plays a few rounds by allowing them to enter numbers into a computer. R&A use these registered stats to tell us how successful they've been at growing the game.

It's a house of 'electronic' cards.

 

[wjemather]

Yep....best way to win is be inconsistent.....do not work on your game to become a better player.
what absolute tosh.

No, the best way to win is to improve.

 

[Thintowin]

No, the best way to win is to improve.

It is but the WHS will make your competitive life miserable. It rewards mediocrity, everyone can see that apart from you maybe.

 

[wjemather]

Why should a system that's supposed to support club competitions aim to be fair for players that don't put any effort into their game? Golf was, and should be, a game that helps people to learn about themselves as they improve. Eventually they get good enough to compete. WHS is putting an end to that by trying to give full 'registered golfer' credibility to anyone who plays a few rounds by allowing them to enter numbers into a computer. R&A use these registered stats to tell us how successful they've been at growing the game.

It's a house of 'electronic' cards.

Handicap systems provide a measure of ability in order to facilitate fair competition. They do not support club comps, reward effort, reward length of service, or teach people about themselves.

What is "full 'registered golfer' credibility"? Sounds like your after a golf license system (like Germany), something that (again) is not the job of the handicap system.

 

[rulefan]

Yep....best way to win is be inconsistent.....do not work on your game to become a better player.
what absolute tosh.

After I retired from tennis I took up golf. For a few years my handicap came down. I still work at my game and try hard to improve but I am now physically unable to get any better. With WHS I am in with a chance.

 

[Thintowin]

Handicap systems provide a measure of ability in order to facilitate fair competition. They do not support club comps, reward effort, reward length of service, or teach people about themselves.

Did you help design WHS? I would imagine it was designed by people who have little understanding of the emotional side of the game and how it links into well-being etc.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

Did you help design WHS? I would imagine it was designed by people who have little understanding of the emotional side of the game and how it links into well-being etc.

Ooh. Please do explain it to us.

 

[wjemather]

Did you help design WHS? I would imagine it was designed by people who have little understanding of the emotional side of the game and how it links into well-being etc.

No.
You can add emotions and well-being to the list of things that are not the job of the handicap system.

 

[Dunesman]

No, the best way to win is to improve.

Surely you agree that that is the worst way. Improving might win as a one off, but the more you improve the lower your chances of winning. So those say WHS disincentivises improvement, are correct (from a competitions point at least. there are other motivations and rewards from improvement). The old system incentivised improvement from that aspect. (not that I am in favour of yhat either. the goal should be a level playing field).
And admittedly, a level playing field for all aspects is not possible. But irking UK golfers as the swing from favouring low men, to disadvantaging low men, has been dramatic, and that due to the fact that leveling the playing field as a balance between winning and high placing is not what they want. They wany their fair chance to WIN, not fair chance to be 10th more often then the 24 handicapper.

 

[Dunesman]

The reward for effort is improvement and improvers will always have an advantage under any handicap system.

Same point. Only as a once off. In the long term, the improver loses.

 

[Dunesman]

UHS had the same fundamental limitations as WHS but was intentionally skewed in favour of lower handicappers and in too many handicaps didn't reflect ability without substantial interference by the handicap committee.

No issue for me removing the advantage for wins that low hcs had. But the mistake was to go from for, to against them.

 

[Thintowin]

No issue for me removing the advantage for wins that low hcs had. But the mistake was to go from for, to against them.

I think it's also over simplistic to say it's low handicappers v high handicappers. The advantage has been handed to perfectly capable golfers who don't play enough to be consistent. These guys used to play off 6 or 7 and now often get 15 shots. They're generally embarrassed by it but can do nothing about it because they don't have the time, or inclination, to practice.

The system is utter nonsense.

Edit...
Just to add that the existence of this category of golfer is often the incentive for many to not try too hard when they're having an off day. Cheating it may be but WHS has created the opportunity and, as some may see it, the need.

 

[bobmac]

Can someone help me out please?
When I used to play in club knock-outs, my opposition used to get 3/4s the difference in h/cap so a guy of 2 would give a guy off 18, 12 shots.
I believe that has changed now, am I correct?

 

[Thintowin]

Can someone help me out please?
When I used to play in club knock-outs, my opposition used to get 3/4s the difference in h/cap so a guy of 2 would give a guy off 18, 12 shots.
I believe that has changed now, am I correct?

He gets 16 shots and often a walkover. No one under 7 even enters at my club any more. Knock out cup previously had all the great names through the decades. Now a list of mediocrity.

 

[wjemather]

Can someone help me out please?
When I used to play in club knock-outs, my opposition used to get 3/4s the difference in h/cap so a guy of 2 would give a guy off 18, 12 shots.
I believe that has changed now, am I correct?

Yes, the singles match play allowance used to be 3/4, and low handicappers held a massive advantage and would be expected to win >>60% of the time. Over the course of a knockout competition, the chance of a higher handicapper reaching the latter stages was remote.
The CONGU recommended allowance first changed to 100% in 1986 (later in England and mandatory much later), long before WHS came along, and they still had a significant advantage, being expected to win well over 50% of the time. Higher handicappers still had little chance of winning a knockout over several rounds.
Now they are expected to win only marginally over 50% of the time, but everyone has a reasonable chance of reaching the latter stages.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

He gets 16 shots and often a walkover. No one under 7 even enters at my club any more. Knock out cup previously had all the great names through the decades. Now a list of mediocrity.

I won a knockout a few years ago off 4/5 beating many high handicappers on the way. Was knocked out in the semis last year by a lad off 8.

What do you play off? What does your spread of score differentials look like?

And are you going to explain how the emotional side of golf links to well being, and how the introduction of WHS has had an impact on this. Some actual research papers would be interesting to read.

 

[bobmac]

Yes, the singles match play allowance used to be 3/4, and low handicappers held a massive advantage and would be expected to win >>60% of the time.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that, it doesn't make it true.