doublebogey7
Head Pro
I don't know, and ditto what you are getting at?
Handicap manipulation - how to address
- Thread starter Teebs
- Start date
wjemather
Well-known member
The opinions (actually heavily biased wishes) of the fans of either team are irrelevant - the fact is: it was a penalty.
Anyway, how does your analogy relate to this discussion?
Last edited:
bobmac
Major Champion
So 20,000 spurs fans say it wasn't a penalty and the referee said it was.
Statistically speaking, the conclusion would be it wasn't a penalty, but if you ask the Arsenal fans, you would get the opposite result.
Facts don't consider anyone's opinion and vary, depending on who you ask.
Thintowin
Active member
No surprise there, I already could see that you don't get it.
wjemather
Well-known member
No it wouldn't, not least because the opinion of fans is extremely biased, is rarely based on evidence, and generally lacks any solid foundation in the rules/laws of the game.
Facts do not vary.
And how does your analogy relate to this discussion?
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Spurs fans think it is not a penalty, that is both a fact and a statistic. The conclusion you claim from that is not a statistic, but your bizzare conclusion from that statistic, no statistician worth their salt would draw that conclusion. The Daily Mail might though.
bobmac
Major Champion
So if 20,000 biased opinions are easily dismissed in favour of 1 supposed unbiased opinion, how can we use any statistics to back up our argument.
What conclusion would you come to if, in a discussion, 10 Cat I golfers said WHS is bad and 100 Cat III golfers said it was good?
Colin L
Tour Winner
There's nothing of import to get.
bobmac
Major Champion
'20,000 fans think it is a penalty' may be a fact but whether they are right or not is an opinion not shared by the referee.
wjemather
Well-known member
Statistics are based on data.
Data can be almost anything, including facts and opinions.
In your football scenario, the data is opinions.
The data behind WHS is facts.
Opinions are often not particularly well-informed and usually clouded by self-interest, so there is no useful conclusion to be drawn from them without further information.
Last edited:
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Agan I know and have not said otherwise.
AussieKB
Well-known member
Thought this was a golf thread ?
Thintowin
Active member
I am quite surprised but I can now see a few of you guys really have little real world experience of playing handicap golf. Either that or you fail to understand the emotional side of the game.
My point is to highlight that considering the old system needed fixing just because, statistically, more lower handicappers won against higher handicappers demonstrates a lack of depth in your understanding of our game.
Consider this simple example. A 2 handicapper is playing a 14. To begin with, the majority of 2 handicappers are more experienced than the majority of 14 handicappers. They often have game craft. The next point is that a good few 14 handicappers rarely play with lower handicappers and are often intimidated by the different ball striking. Some, but not many, react positively but many lose their common sense approach and fail to use their shots well. Higher handicappers therefore often beat themselves.
I could go on but I'm not going to. I was hoping that you'd just know this about golf.
D-S
Well-known member
Has it ever occurred to you that some of the people who do not necessarily agree with all your points may actually have a considerably broader knowledge and experience of handicap golf and have frequent contact with a wide range of different clubs and their committees than just golfers with only experience of their own particular club?
Thintowin
Active member
What has occurred to me is that there may be a contingent of people on here who are associated in some way with the implementation of WHS. A lack of impartiality perhaps.
You don't know anything about me and I won't be drawn.
Neilds
Assistant Pro
We might not know anything about you, but you know equally nothing about other members but seem to suggest they are part of a conspiracy involving WHS
D-S
Well-known member
He also accuses them of being ‘pub golfers’ and having no experience of club golf.
Thintowin
Active member
Not just that...
Thintowin
Active member
Seems that any time a few sensible people on here begin to expose the nonsense a gang turns up.
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
I wonder what national analysis of the average lapsed time of the "last 20" would show?
I'm seeing such a diversity of behaviours and number of cards entered, I couldn't guess with any certainty.
Regardless, my feeling is that whs is more fluid and hence more "current form" indicative.
My gut feel is different from yours about how many cards go in. But it's only gut feel and I play with folk who play at least 3 times a week
But as you say, it depends on the lapsed time between card 1 and card 20, which will vary greatly across golfers.
On reflection the correct answer about whether whs is "current form" or "demonstrated ability" might be, "it depends!"
When the WHS came in we had over 100 members (that was more than 25% of the members) who had not put in any cards for several years. I doubt that since it came in they would have put in any.
Within the groups I play in can think of several that only put in cards when playing in comps and that would be less than 10 cards a year.
Similar threads
