Handicap manipulation - how to address

[wjemather]

One thing we have all learned here I think is that WHS is a very misleading name. It is many systems with lots of adjustability in the hands of regional golf associations. EG is reponsible firstly for us joining WHS, flawed as ut is, secondly for not driving a better handicap system in the devising of WHS, and turdly, for not implementing a variant tuned to the needs of English golfers. The buck stops with them. They are the villains of this needlessly self-inflicted fiasco. But have their own mission and agenda which is not one set by the golf clubs of England.

You certainly don't speak for "all", and unfortunately you have "learned" many things that aren't true (including what a "system" is).

You obviously don't like aspects of WHS, which is fine of course, but like many others, much of your dislike seems to be based on a great deal of incorrect information. Given how often many of these things have been repeatedly corrected, disappointing to keep seeing them trotted out.

 

[Colin L]

One thing we have all learned here ........

One thing I have learned over the years is never to give much credence to an argument couched in wildly exaggerated terms. It almost invariably signifies entrenched opinion, seldom offers insightful analysis and is never really worth trying to counter (although it does, as I have to admit and have shown in this thread, tend to suck me into rmaking futile responses).

The most important aspect of the universality of WHS is that your handicap is 'portable': you can go to any rated course in the world and enter a competition, have a fun match with your friends, play others from a variety of countries with course handicaps tailored to the course you are playing by the same basic system. And you can submit scores to help maintain your handicap. The sort of things you complain of are not central to the core functions of the system.

 

[Voyager EMH]

The sort of things you complain of are not central to the core functions of the system.

I entirely agree with this comment. That became obvious to me early on in posts from Thintowin.
He is concerned with the outcomes he observes/perceives and this is not entirely bound to the principals of the arithmetical system that produces those outcomes.

We have come to the point of accepting a negative outcome of too many internal combustion engines in the world.
Yet the internal combustion engine is a marvellous invention treated with a godlike worship by many.

Criticism of the outcomes of WHS is something that should be allowed to be debated - whether this proves fruitful or not.
What level of skill a person has at criticism and debate is a fairly pointless topic. This seems to have been a large part of this debate.

I admire Thintowin's persistence in the face of much scorn and derision. He has irritated many - but they brought that on themselves by addressing their comments directly to him.
This can be avoided to some extent by depersonalising responses when making a counter argument.

eg "I don't think that is true, because..."

I am expecting someone say, "What a load of drivel" to this post. Feel free.

 

[Dunesman]

I entirely agree with this comment. That became obvious to me early on in posts from Thintowin.
He is concerned with the outcomes he observes/perceives and this is not entirely bound to the principals of the arithmetical system that produces those outcomes.

We have come to the point of accepting a negative outcome of too many internal combustion engines in the world.
Yet the internal combustion engine is a marvellous invention treated with a godlike worship by many.

Criticism of the outcomes of WHS is something that should be allowed to be debated - whether this proves fruitful or not.
What level of skill a person has at criticism and debate is a fairly pointless topic. This seems to have been a large part of this debate.

I admire Thintowin's persistence in the face of much scorn and derision. He has irritated many - but they brought that on themselves by addressing their comments directly to him.
This can be avoided to some extent by depersonalising responses when making a counter argument.

eg "I don't think that is true, because..."

I am expecting someone say, "What a load of drivel" to this post. Feel free.

Not to be mistaken for a 'who needs experts' type critique, but there is an interesting psychological phenomenon where those who are truly more expert, tend be of more closed mind than the less expert. The greater knowledge, and their awareness of their greater knowledge or expertise, can have a not seeing the wood for the trees effect, and element of dogmatic blind spot for the expert that does not apply to the non expert. The non expert, unconstrained by the deeper knowledge, observes an outcome or phenomenon only, without having to fit it into a preconceived framework. The expert finds it hard not to use their knowledge to expect a given result. And if they cannot rationalise the observed outcome, has a tendency to deny it, as it 'should not be so' from their understanding, and seeks more to dismiss the observation or bend it into their understanding even incorrectly.
This is not a case against 'experts'. But sometimes the more unbiased view of the non expert can provide a perspective...that the willing expert can investigate and truly extend their own knowledge.

 

[rulie]

In any system, there will be results that are "outliers".
A couple quotes from the National Institute of Standards:

An outlier is an observation that lies an abnormal distance from other values in a random sample from a population. In a sense, this definition leaves it up to the analyst (or a consensus process) to decide what will be considered abnormal. Before abnormal observations can be singled out, it is necessary to characterize normal observations.

Outliers should be investigated carefully. Often they contain valuable information about the process under investigation or the data gathering and recording process. Before considering the possible elimination of these points from the data, one should try to understand why they appeared and whether it is likely similar values will continue to appear. Of course, outliers are often bad data points.

Handicap manipulation could be producing "outliers". If that is understood to be a cause of outliers, those in charge should take actions to minimize/eliminate them.
Isn't that what this thread was about? Not just identification of outliers, but identifying and eliminating the specific cause(s)? The issue may not be in the system itself, just a very small group of the users.
If those in charge of the results (Committees) are dissatisfied with the results, they can take actions to address the issues.
Constant and repeated moaning is not a corrective action.

 

[Dunesman]

Isn't that what this thread was about?

Not exclusively, the title is now a little misleading, as it is an all aspect of WHS thread.
The cheating element may be there, and would agree they are rare outliers that can be handled by the corrective measures powers of committees.
The greater distortion to handicapped competition is lower profile, but more endemic, and a consequence of the construction of WHS in my view.

 

[rulie]

Not exclusively, the title is now a little misleading, as it is an all aspect of WHS thread.
The cheating element may be there, and would agree they are rare outliers that can be handled by the corrective measures powers of committees.
The greater distortion to handicapped competition is lower profile, but more endemic, and a consequence of the construction of WHS in my view.

Is it possible that the WHS is an attempt to correct a distortion of the previous UHS - a bias towards lower handicaps and a bias against those with less ability (by significantly limiting warranted handicap increases)?

 

[Dunesman]

Is it possible that the WHS is an attempt to correct a distortion of the previous UHS - a bias towards lower handicaps and a bias against those with less ability (by significantly limiting warranted handicap increases)?

No, that would be revisionism. It was never a stated aim of WHS, which justified itself on the basis of the need/benefits of a single basis and thus portability of handicaps worldwide. Despite being a goal nobody was clamouring for. A solution to a problem we didnt even know we had.

 

[Hobbit]

Is it possible that the WHS is an attempt to correct a distortion of the previous UHS - a bias towards lower handicaps and a bias against those with less ability (by significantly limiting warranted handicap increases)?

I’m with you on this one. It’s been argued for years that it isn’t a level playing field with lower handicapped players winning a majority of competitions. And when you consider that there are far more higher handicappers, surely the ratio of wins should be in their favour.

Note; my opinion is a 5 second look without bothering to look very deeply.

 

[wjemather]

No, that would be revisionism. It was never a stated aim of WHS, which justified itself on the basis of the need/benefits of a single basis and thus portability of handicaps worldwide. Despite being a goal nobody was clamouring for. A solution to a problem we didnt even know we had.

It certainly wasn't unknown and evidentially some lower handicappers view a built-in advantage as nothing less than they deserve, rather than a problem.

 

[wjemather]

Is it possible that the WHS is an attempt to correct a distortion of the previous UHS - a bias towards lower handicaps and a bias against those with less ability (by significantly limiting warranted handicap increases)?

The USGA and GA systems were also biased in favour of better players, so the decision to reduce/remove any "bonus for excellence" from the system was almost certainly a global one, rather than something driven by the (even greater) inequity of UHS.

 

[Dunesman]

It certainly wasn't unknown and evidentially some lower handicappers view a built-in advantage as nothing less than they deserve, rather than a problem.

Portability being the problem we didnt know needed solving, not the in/equality. WHS stood on unification, not imbalances/rebalancing.

 

[rulie]

Portability being the problem we didnt know needed solving, not the in/equality. WHS stood on unification, not imbalances/rebalancing.

Advertising/promotion focuses on messages chosen to sell, it rarely covers all the intentions, features or outcomes.

 

[Dunesman]

Advertising/promotion focuses on messages chosen to sell, it rarely covers all the intentions, features or outcomes.

Are you justifying a deliberate deception, or was there any reference to changing the chances of different handicaps levels in competitions ?

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/WHS-background-overview/why-a-world-handicap-system-.html#:~:text=The%20World%20Handicap%20System%20%28WHS%29%20aims%20to%20bring,basis%2C%20no%20matter%20how%20or%20where%20they%20play.

What is the World Handicap System (WHS)?

The World Handicap System (WHS) aims to bring six different handicap systems together into a single set of Rules for Handicapping, enabling golfers of different abilities to play and compete on a fair and equal basis, no matter how or where they play.


Yet now we find that fair basis was deliberately distorted.

And a serious question mentioned before, but an element not transposed from the US that is maybe integral to the system working there : a looser attitude to the rules, reducing handicap indexes, and so reducing or eliminating the unfair advantage higher handicap UK golfers now have. We didnt fully adopt their culture of rounding scores downward. Artificially we mights say, but in reality, having a levelling corrective influence.

There is no defence from associations here when people experience a negative element that was deliberate hidden or missold to them.

 

[wjemather]

Portability being the problem we didnt know needed solving, not the in/equality. WHS stood on unification, not imbalances/rebalancing.

Portability was a well known problem that was frequently raised. Whether you think it needed solving or not is a subjective judgement, but it would be hard to argue against the principle.

 

[Dunesman]

Portability was a well known problem that was frequently raised. Whether you think it needed solving or not is a subjective judgement, but it would be hard to argue against the principle.

No one is arguing against the principle I think. That is not the point. The issue is that it has been found out to be at the expense of equity in competitions golf that is a significant part of the culture and landscape of UK amateur golf. Nobody was given an explanation of this possible downside, let alone given forum to express a view on whether the portability was worth the downside.

 

[Dunesman]

Portability was a well known problem that was frequently raised. Whether you think it needed solving or not is a subjective judgement, but it would be hard to argue against the principle.

Compare and contrast the threads and posts here on WHS equity, versus those pre 2020 complaining about the lack of portability of handicaps throughout the world.
I dont think the pre 2020 chief of England Golf was buttonholed at every opportunity by ordinary golfers demanding the 'issue' of portability be resolved.

 

[wjemather]

No one is arguing against the principle I think. That is not the point. The issue is that it has been found out to be at the expense of equity in competitions golf that is a significant part of the culture and landscape of UK amateur golf. Nobody was given an explanation of this possible downside, let alone given forum to express a view on whether the portability was worth the downside.

Portability and equity are completely unrelated features. If GB&I unions want(ed) to maintain/shift the balance of equity in favour of lower handicappers they have it within their power to mandate different (i.e. lower) allowances. Portability would be 100% unchanged.

 

[Dunesman]

Portability and equity are completely unrelated features.

Thats my very point. They sold the need for portability (even if the demand for this from the footsoldier golfer was minimal to nil, but whatever). So why, either wittingly but surrepticiously, or unwittingly due to doing a poor job, did they also change the equity in the transition? If this had not changed, there would have been zero complaints or controversy about WHS.

 

[rulie]

Are you justifying a deliberate deception, or was there any reference to changing the chances of different handicaps levels in competitions ?

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/WHS-background-overview/why-a-world-handicap-system-.html#:~:text=The%20World%20Handicap%20System%20%28WHS%29%20aims%20to%20bring,basis%2C%20no%20matter%20how%20or%20where%20they%20play.

What is the World Handicap System (WHS)?

The World Handicap System (WHS) aims to bring six different handicap systems together into a single set of Rules for Handicapping, enabling golfers of different abilities to play and compete on a fair and equal basis, no matter how or where they play.


Yet now we find that fair basis was deliberately distorted.

And a serious question mentioned before, but an element not transposed from the US that is maybe integral to the system working there : a looser attitude to the rules, reducing handicap indexes, and so reducing or eliminating the unfair advantage higher handicap UK golfers now have. We didnt fully adopt their culture of rounding scores downward. Artificially we mights say, but in reality, having a levelling corrective influence.

There is no defence from associations here when people experience a negative element that was deliberate hidden or missold to them.

Perhaps the "fair and equal basis" meant the elimination of the bias of some systems to low handicappers and the disadvantage to lower ability players? And the lower handicappers want their advantage returned?