Handicap manipulation - how to address

[Arthur Wedge]

Are you buying an Everton shirt anytime soon?

Eh ? What ?

 

[IanM]

Eh ? What ?

Don't panic, I'd have hoped that didn't require explaining.

Our esteemed colleague is as likely to have considered an alternative response, as you are to buy a blue shirt.

Unlikely, isn't it?

 

[Colin L]

NCG's survey does show WHS blowing up in EG's face though. There is no hiding from the fact that it was a botched job with 30% of respondents saying it is worse than the old system. They cannot hide behind the fact that marginally more think it better - with such a high number thinking it a disimprovement, that is a shocking failure either in substance, communication, or both.
We are five years down the line now. It is not a question of letting the dust settle, or people just not liking change. This is a big thumbs down. And the shift of the narrative goes on with new metrics being touted by the authorities to try to paint it as a success "governing bodies reporting more scores being submitted, more general play scores being posted, and more players carrying World Handicap System indexes" which really is pathetic.
Are they going to listen to the 30% and act ?

This is beyond absurd. 37.3% of respondents think the WHS is worse than before; 63.6% thought it better or the same. You make that to be a "marginal" difference which somehow demonstrates a "big thumbs down". a "shocking failure"'? You must be a descendant of the Red Queen who "sometimes believed six impossible things before breakfast".

 

[Dunesman]

This is beyond absurd. 37.3% of respondents think the WHS is worse than before; 63.6% thought it better or the same. You make that to be a "marginal" difference which somehow demonstrates a "big thumbs down". a "shocking failure"'? You must be a descendant of the Red Queen who "sometimes believed six impossible things before breakfast".

Your are summing 'better' and 'same' to present a lopsided result. One could equally sum same and worse to present a dipole : only 43.3% consider WHS better while 56.7 consider the same or worse.

The starighter comparison, without bending the statistics either was is that 37.3%n consider it worse versus 43.3 better. That is marginal.

Nor is it a matter of having a simple majority of approvers versus disapprovers to consider the venture a success. To implement a supposed improved system and have a very significant majority of more than 1 in 3 golfers considering it a disimprovement cannot be varnished over from being a failure. That is not a trivial or dismissable handful of stuck-in-the-muds. It was supposed to be an upgrade ! Success should have have everyone, or very close to, viewing it as a positive event. That EG and the likes are now trumpeting stats like returned cards to quantify the implentation as a success shows how they are scrambling to mask what has been a very bad job on their side, and done a disservice to a great number of footsoldier golfers in the UK.

 

[D-S]

Are they going to listen to the 30% and act ?

No.

 

[Neilds]

Your are summing 'better' and 'same' to present a lopsided result. One could equally sum same and worse to present a dipole : only 43.3% consider WHS better while 56.7 consider the same or worse.

The starighter comparison, without bending the statistics either was is that 37.3%n consider it worse versus 43.3 better. That is marginal.

Nor is it a matter of having a simple majority of approvers versus disapprovers to consider the venture a success. To implement a supposed improved system and have a very significant majority of more than 1 in 3 golfers considering it a disimprovement cannot be varnished over from being a failure. That is not a trivial or dismissable handful of stuck-in-the-muds. It was supposed to be an upgrade ! Success should have have everyone, or very close to, viewing it as a positive event. That EG and the likes are now trumpeting stats like returned cards to quantify the implentation as a success shows how they are scrambling to mask what has been a very bad job on their side, and done a disservice to a great number of footsoldier golfers in the UK.

And how do we count all those (like me) who don’t care and didn’t respond? Surely we count as positive?

 

[Colin L]

Your are summing 'better' and 'same' to present a lopsided result.

More nonsense. I have summed them as together those who do not share your negative view of the WHS and who have not shown any inclination to do away with it plus those who positively find it to be better..

 

[Arthur Wedge]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1887955800582139923

It can be span anyway you want

43% believes that WHS is better

37% think it’s worse

 

[wjemather]

These type of surveys are always skewed by getting disproportionately more responses from those with strong opinions; and very few respondents have enough knowledge to give an informed opinion.

Also, as has been said before, the true majority don't know which is better, don't care which is better, and are quite happy to use whatever system they are given.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

These type of surveys are always skewed by getting disproportionately more responses from those with strong opinions; and very few respondents have enough knowledge to give an informed opinion.

Also, as has been said before, the true majority don't know which is better, don't care which is better, and are quite happy to use whatever system they are given.

Staggering

 

[clubchamp98]

These type of surveys are always skewed by getting disproportionately more responses from those with strong opinions; and very few respondents have enough knowledge to give an informed opinion.

So do you think the 43% who like it are badly informed and are wrong.?

 

[IanM]

Also, as has been said before, the true majority don't know which is better, don't care which is better, and are quite happy to use whatever system they are given.

That's virtually my experience of the folk I play with. They just get on with it, they raise eyebrows, but generally just get on with it.

Although, if pressed, they'd say it's worse!

 

[jim8flog]

NCG's survey does show WHS blowing up in EG's face though. There is no hiding from the fact that it was a botched job with 30% of respondents saying it is worse than the old system. They cannot hide behind the fact that marginally more think it better - with such a high number thinking it a disimprovement, that is a shocking failure either in substance, communication, or both.
We are five years down the line now. It is not a question of letting the dust settle, or people just not liking change. This is a big thumbs down. And the shift of the narrative goes on with new metrics being touted by the authorities to try to paint it as a success "governing bodies reporting more scores being submitted, more general play scores being posted, and more players carrying World Handicap System indexes" which really is pathetic.
Are they going to listen to the 30% and act ?

That suggests to me that 70% are happy with it.

If you were in charge which group would you go with.

 

[Dunesman]

More nonsense. I have summed them as together those who do not share your negative view of the WHS and who have not shown any inclination to do away with it plus those who positively find it to be better..

If you allow the addition of 'same' voters to 'better' voters, you will accept it as equally valid to sum them with the 'worse' to reach a conclusion that - only 43% regard WHS as an improvement on its predecessor. Not exactly a resounding endorsement for all the to do about it.

 

[Dunesman]

And how do we count all those (like me) who don’t care and didn’t respond? Surely we count as positive?

You dont count as either. You are unknown. No less than myself - I didnt vote either. If your statement were correct, then you are suggesting I count as positive. Which would be incorrect.
Its a sample. Possibly imperfect and an unscientific sample. But that doesnt sanction reading any result one wants into it. Normally it is those not likeing the results implications who criticise the methodology.
In this debate though, at least it is some indicator. We await the WHS survey itself.

 

[Dunesman]

That suggests to me that 70% are happy with it.

If you were in charge which group would you go with.

Again, you cannot claim 'same' as happy with it.

The bigger point though is that a very significant proportion consider it a disimprovement. This is the failure. Success would have been a reported positive improvement to all or almost all. The transition has been a unsatisfactory and a disimprovement to (yes, according to this poll, but that is the data being discussed) 37% of respondents. Even if it were 10% that would still be a bad outcome.

Possibly the mistake I and others have made is in the expectation that the goal of WHS was to improve matters for golfers. It would seem that was not the case, and damage to the handicapping golf experience of a large number of existing golfers is irrelevant in the thinking of the authorities.

 

[AussieKB]

Would be interesting to see the handicaps of those thinking it is BETTER and those thinking it was WORSE

 

[clubchamp98]

Would be interesting to see the handicaps of those thinking it is BETTER and those thinking it was WORSE

Don’t think there would be any suprizes.

But to pee off 37% of your “ customers” is not good.

 

[KenL]

I think low handicappers like the whs as there seems to be more scratch and plus handicap golfers than there used to be.

 

[Colin L]

If you allow the addition of 'same' voters to 'better' voters, you will accept it as equally valid to sum them with the 'worse' to reach a conclusion that - only 43% regard WHS as an improvement on its predecessor. Not exactly a resounding endorsement for all the to do about it.

Oh no I won't.