Which most would have accepted I think. Were it so. Firstly, that needed to be explained. Secondly, that would be fine if that was what was implemented. Instead, a bias AGAINST lower handicaps was implemented. So a doubly whammy. Loss of an advantage most low handicappers didnt even know they had, and, the inclusion of a bias against them. Of course they feel uncompetitive, let down by WHS, and that any gains in portability are puny compared to the everyday impact on their enjoyment of club competition.
Handicap manipulation - how to address
- Thread starter Teebs
- Start date
wjemather
Well-known member
You literally just claimed that portability was achieved "at the expense of equity".
This is just is laughable. Whether there's been change or no change, golfers have complained incessantly about the handicap system in GB&I for ~100 years.
Steve Wilkes
Well-known member
Personally I think WHS and it's algorithms was brought in for the these reasons and most probably in this order
1) To have a proper portable handicap index that should cover wherever you play, different country or a neighbouring course - tick
2) To give a fairer handicap to each individual to cover a group of 4 players playing together - tick
.) .....
.) .....
n.) To give a handicap to each individual to make if fairer for all in a 100+ competition - ??? (And this is where individual clubs should have a little more say in how they can run there own competitions to suit their own demographic of club/comp members, If they were allowed they can run a different competitions with different criteria's on playing handicaps for variety and see what works best for them, This could be done without altering the integrity of everyones WHS handicap index.
Going back to the original title of this thread, Handicap cheats caught deliberately falsifying their handicap through cheating, should be banished from the club or from club completions, I know this can be hard to prove in a lot of cases, but filing in a card when you have not played is a major cheat and a club that has concerns should be able to have a paper trial to look into this kind of problem.
I'm not against the player who sometimes gives up trying his best when off to a bad start in my opinion is not a cheat, this is just human nature in a lot a golfers.
1) To have a proper portable handicap index that should cover wherever you play, different country or a neighbouring course - tick
2) To give a fairer handicap to each individual to cover a group of 4 players playing together - tick
.) .....
.) .....
n.) To give a handicap to each individual to make if fairer for all in a 100+ competition - ??? (And this is where individual clubs should have a little more say in how they can run there own competitions to suit their own demographic of club/comp members, If they were allowed they can run a different competitions with different criteria's on playing handicaps for variety and see what works best for them, This could be done without altering the integrity of everyones WHS handicap index.
Going back to the original title of this thread, Handicap cheats caught deliberately falsifying their handicap through cheating, should be banished from the club or from club completions, I know this can be hard to prove in a lot of cases, but filing in a card when you have not played is a major cheat and a club that has concerns should be able to have a paper trial to look into this kind of problem.
I'm not against the player who sometimes gives up trying his best when off to a bad start in my opinion is not a cheat, this is just human nature in a lot a golfers.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
He did not "claim" literally.
He pointed out out that it has been found to be an issue.
It has been an issue, as far as I can tell, because enough people say that it is, thus making it an issue.
Whether these people are misguided or have a misconception is something to be debated.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Very difficult to debate when your constantly told your personal experiences are wrong.
Using stats to prove their point.
Golf like football isn’t played on paper it’s played at club level on grass!
Colin L
Tour Winner
Where can I find, in order to see for myself that the WHS is biased towards higher handicappers, studies and statistical evidence of it Unsubstantiated statements to that effect don't impress any more than unsubstantiated statements saying the opposite. That just leads to a pantomime oh yes it does, oh no it doesn't exchange of opposing opinions.
EG is not forthcoming in publishing data one way or the other.
The following however is comprehensive, and our Aussie correspondent will confirm or correct please, but the data below is based on a 0.93 multiplier I think, so the situation will be skewed further against low indexes for clubs using 0.95. Also, it is comparing 'old' Australian system versus WHS. Not congu, so the differential old to new might be more or less, we can only speculate without a similar GB&I study. But the conclusion of WHS favouring higher indexes is still valid.
Anyone who doesnt like that it confirms WHS biases against low indexes, please resist the temptation to try to poke holes in the analysis just because it doesnt reach the conclusion you would like it to.
AussieKB
Well-known member
I moved from OZ to England for over 10 years maintaining a 5 handicap in both Countries pre OZ HS and WHS,
so no problem under the old system.
Now my handicap goes up and down like a yo yo.
so no problem under the old system.
Now my handicap goes up and down like a yo yo.
wjemather
Well-known member
That report is from 2011, so does not provide any analysis of WHS, which launched in 2020.
It is an analysis of the initial USGA-based system that GA adopted before significant and substantial modifications were made, not least the change to an 0.93 "multiplier" from the 0.96 "bonus for excellence", the change to 'best 8 from 20' from 'best 10 from 20', and the introduction of Slope.
Last edited:
AussieKB
Well-known member
Plus all the other changes, so hence we have OZ HS and not WHS or Irish HS or English HS,
so why call it WHS ?
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
I can think of a few words beginning with “W”
rulie
Head Pro
Good for picking up the date, I thought that I had seen that report earlier.
One of the concluding remarks is interesting, and may sound familiar:
One could suggest that "high markers" were penalized for that occasional good round!
Last edited:
Colin L
Tour Winner
I have comprehensive data which oonfirm the cumulative effect of the 0.1 ratchet system at my own club. In the worst instances we had old members whose net differentials were in the high teens.Good for picking up the date, I thought that I had seen that report earlier.
One of the concluding remarks is interesting, and may sound familiar:
View attachment 56580
One could suggest that "high markers" were penalized for that occasional good round!
rulefan
Tour Winner
Is that not the most significant change?
wjemather
Well-known member
Certainly at some courses.
nickjdavis
Head Pro
That is about as big a hole as you could wish to poke in the analysis!!!!
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Exactly, which I stopped posting on this threads as all we are getting is opinion from one half of the discussion and facts from ther other and never the twain shall meet. Unfortinately that is where the world is right now feelings and opinion trump (pun intended) expertise and facts.
OK, as expected.
Nevertheless, while pre WHS, it was a move froma CONGU type nudge up nudge down to a moving average based on the same statistical process that was translated to WHS. And its conclusion is exactly as described and theorised by those now having experience of WHS results : the greater volatility of handicap in larger field events (it finds a crossing point of a field of 50 entrants beyond which low indexes have decreasing chance - much golf in England is played with fields of 100+, the very competitions that are causing the friction), the decreases the chances of lower indexes of winning. And reviews the option of change the average score base to tame the chances of 'Turnarounds' but that has positives and negatives.
For those demanding clear data, in a sense your are closing your mind to the discussion. Even if a club did analysis you would reject it as only one club. If someone posts an example from a compeition you will dismiss it as just one data point (with reason). The only sources of big data are the golf associations. Golf Australia published this analysis after nine months. We are 4 years into WHS. Where is a similar analysis from EG ? Even without data, the concerns and criticisms of WHS are fair to make (even based on anecdote and limited data in clubs) - it is up to the authorities to publish the meta data correcting an incorrect golfer impression if that is the case, or acknowledging that the complaints have grounds if that is the case. So as long as there is no big data, defenders of WHS can point to the fact that there is no evidence. If those in possession of the data wont publish it, they too are technical correct to state there is no evidence of a non level playing field, but it is also disingenuous. (it is like the WHO stating 5 years ago in the early months of the pandemic that was no evidence masks protected from Covid - a true statement taken baldly. There were no peer reviewed studies into the matter, of course, as the pandemic was only starting. But they knew very will masks were protective, but due to the lack of supply at the time, didnt want to syphon the limited supply towards the public, but retain it for healthcare workers. A justified slight of hand).
DickInShorts
Newbie
Viz a viz international equality of handicaps:
I can confirm I’ve had experience of this problem prior to WHS - playing in Morocco there wee players from Singapore who benefited from slope whereas us U.K. players did not and ‘lost’ several shots. This made us uncompetitive and somewhat spoilt the tournament.
Now we can play on a level playing field - with some minor - differences as we do every year in France with competitors from Europe and the Antipodes
I can confirm I’ve had experience of this problem prior to WHS - playing in Morocco there wee players from Singapore who benefited from slope whereas us U.K. players did not and ‘lost’ several shots. This made us uncompetitive and somewhat spoilt the tournament.
Now we can play on a level playing field - with some minor - differences as we do every year in France with competitors from Europe and the Antipodes
And just on Aus, I see that since the 1st of Jan they have reduced further (though slightly) the multiplier for singles comps from 0.93 to 0.928512.
