wjemather
Well-known member
And (due to Stableford adjustments) the former would very likely get cut in stroke play comps, and quickly find themselves down to 8.
Handicap manipulation - how to address
- Thread starter Teebs
- Start date
bobmac
Major Champion
Ok, the solution could be make all comps scratch...then you'll see how many complain that they can't win anything.
upsidedown
Tour Winner
Nope, but truth be told I've enough County Seniors scratch golf to keep me amused in the summer and as we know organising K/O is aright pain at times
wjemather
Well-known member
And we're back to using the extremely unlikely to justify what was evidenced to be an unfair allowance.
bobmac
Major Champion
So if the Stableford adjustments were supposed to fix the problem, why change the allowance from 3/4s to full h/cap?
You might as well put the handicap limit up to 54 while you're at it
Thintowin
Active member
WHS doesn't deal with inconsistent play. That's the point being made.
wjemather
Well-known member
3/4 was designed to give the low handicapper a substantial advantage. Stableford adjustments increased that advantage as it mostly reduced higher handicaps. The allowance was changed to full because that was much fairer than 3/4, but it still afforded an advantage to the lower handicapper.
There was lots written about it around the time of the change; one example by Peter Corrigan in The Independent: "There was a general spasm of horror among low handicappers when CONGU announced after thorough research that the handicap allowances to the less gifted players was so unfair as to need immediate reform... And it took courage to confront clubs with the evidence that the system they had been using for generations was faulty and extremely unfair... Better players needed to give opponents only three-quarters of the difference between their handicaps... When CONGU examined competition statistics from both sides of the Atlantic they could find no justification for it. Indeed to be fair to the higher handicapper, the stroke allowance ought to be one-and-a-quarter times the difference. CONGU didn't go that far and settled for the full difference. Good players were threatening not to enter tournaments because they were convinced that, armed with extra shots, the hackers would swoop down from the hills and massacre them. It hasn't happened. As in the FA Cup, some minnows will have their day but the odds are still very much in favour of the better players."
The maximum handicap was increased from 24 up to 28 in 1983, and then to 54 long before WHS.
Last edited:
wjemather
Well-known member
Yes it does - through mechanisms like maximum hole score (nett double bogey) and using the best 8 from 20, the inconsistent bad is virtually eliminated from the equation.
WorldHandicapSystem
Active member
What has scratch comps got to do with my point?
Not everyone who joins a club wants to play in organised club comps. Most people who play golf don’t play in organised club comps.
The fuss about WHS is from a small minority who think they are the majority, and think their opinion holds more weight because they have a single figure handicap that makes them special.
WorldHandicapSystem
Active member
Define consistency in relation to handicap golf.
D-S
Well-known member
I think we now know where most stand on here re WHS.
It would be nice to have some useful suggestions to address the original question of this thread.
It would be nice to have some useful suggestions to address the original question of this thread.
rosecott
Money List Winner
I would be interested to know the details of how that worked.
bobmac
Major Champion
Fine, make all the comps scratch then.
I don't know where you get these ideas from
Last edited:
Thintowin
Active member
Perhaps it was introduced for fairness?
Maybe people had a view on what was actually happening on a golf course rather than just looking at a set of numbers on a screen?
One aspect is that when higher handicappers get to play a good player they often raise their game considerably just by applying themselves.
There was a greater understanding of the nuances of the game. Now we have a 'computer says no' mentality it seems.
bobmac
Major Champion
''An unfair allowance for higher handicappers'' was the finding of a committee made up predominantly by people with higher handicaps.
3 jabber
Well-known member
Yes....and the handicap system catches up with them quite rapidly. I get no pleasure from playing a chomper that puts no effort into improving and losing because I'm giving them an obscene amount of shots and my view is quite common amongst low handicappers.
rulefan
Tour Winner
From the SLGA pre WHS. This was consistent with a CONGU study for which I am searching my files.
The SLGA conducted a survey of club ladies’ singles match play events.
42 clubs contributed the full results of a total of 73 tournaments covering 1,351 matches that
involved 1 or more strokes being conceded / received. Full handicap difference applied in all
matches.
The survey showed that:
• Overall 59.1% of the individual matches were won by the lower handicapped player
i.e. even when conceding full handicap difference the lower handicap players
prevailed more often than not.
• This effect was even more pronounced in the matches that were won by a large
margin i.e. 6&5 or greater; in these games the lower handicapped player won 71% of
the time.
The SLGA conducted a survey of club ladies’ singles match play events.
42 clubs contributed the full results of a total of 73 tournaments covering 1,351 matches that
involved 1 or more strokes being conceded / received. Full handicap difference applied in all
matches.
The survey showed that:
• Overall 59.1% of the individual matches were won by the lower handicapped player
i.e. even when conceding full handicap difference the lower handicap players
prevailed more often than not.
• This effect was even more pronounced in the matches that were won by a large
margin i.e. 6&5 or greater; in these games the lower handicapped player won 71% of
the time.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Poor them so you disadvantage me.?
Thintowin
Active member
Hardly identifying a problem though.
A lower handicap player is more likely to play to their handicap. There is also the mental side of things where the higher handicap can sometimes feel inferior. Occasionally he's up for it and raises his game.
There are several factors that can affect how people perform in a match situation but the more experienced the player the better they normally deal with the situation.
What I think is important in club matchplay is that both players feel they've been in a fair match and that has gone.
It was there before, it didn't need fixing. We have lost a big chunk of what makes this game great.
Colin L
Tour Winner
What statistical evidence do you have for any of that?
This a just single illustration of what I have commonly seen in elite tournaments I have refereed at. Two years ago, in the first round of a 54 hole stroke play competition a player had a birdie putt on the 18th for a 59. Sadly she didn't make it and recorded a 60, 12 under par. In the second round she scored 78, 6 over par. I forget her third round score but she recovered enough to win.
How many of our world class professionals have come in sometimes with with scores well over par? All of them, perhaps?
How about engaging with the actual system and give us the benefit of your understanding of the mechanics of and knowledge of the mass of statistics which underpinned its development, a development which was carried out, I can assure you, by some rather clever folk? Continuing to make unsubstantiated assertions won't win you any converts.
Similar threads
