Handicap manipulation - how to address

[wjemather]

That is the one bit I don't really get and for me does detratct from the idea that it is a World system. Using 93% for the SD calculation will result in Australian golfers in general having lower handicaps than the rest of the world who use 100%. Leaving Australian's at a disadvantage when competing in handicap events abroad but with an advantage when it comes to getting into balloted scratch events.

They won't have (noticeably) lower handicaps. The difference between 100% and 93% can only make a difference in NDB adjustments on at most one or two holes, but it will usually none as NDB won't be reached on the affected holes, so it has minimal (and most often no) effect on the resultant HI - and is even more inconsequential when it comes to Course and Playing Handicaps.

 

[Voyager EMH]

That is the one bit I don't really get and for me does detratct from the idea that it is a World system. Using 93% for the SD calculation will result in Australian golfers in general having lower handicaps than the rest of the world who use 100%. Leaving Australian's at a disadvantage when competing in handicap events abroad but with an advantage when it comes to getting into balloted scratch events.

Something I've been thinking about for a good while as well.
I don't think the final calculation of HI as an average of 8 best score differentials will vary by anything at all for the vast majority.

Some time ago I ran my best 8 scores with the Ozzie calculations for SD. I took careful note of differing shot-holes and treble bogeys etc as best I could.
Not one score differential was different when rounded to one decimal place. There were differences around 3rd or 4th decimal places, sometimes.
The HI remained the same over 3 separate calculations.
There is potential for a difference in HI, but all the ducks would have to be in a row - or something like that. The one shot-hole where there could be a difference would have to be significantly so enough times. Incidences would be very rare, I think.

But it is a startling difference in its method.

Probably less rare than the errors that are created by rounding SD to one decimal place.
I'm 4.6 currently. But if I round my SDs to 2 or more decimal places, my HI is 4.5
There must be a significant number of people in this position at any given time.

 

[doublebogey7]

Something I've been thinking about for a good while as well.
I don't think the final calculation of HI as an average of 8 best score differentials will vary by anything at all for the vast majority.

Some time ago I ran my best 8 scores with the Ozzie calculations for SD. I took careful note of differing shot-holes and treble bogeys etc as best I could.
Not one score differential was different when rounded to one decimal place. There were differences around 3rd or 4th decimal places, sometimes.
The HI remained the same over 3 separate calculations.
There is potential for a difference in HI, but all the ducks would have to be in a row - or something like that. The one shot-hole where there could be a difference would have to be significantly so enough times. Incidences would be very rare, I think.

But it is a startling difference in its method.

Probably less rare than the errors that are created by rounding SD to one decimal place.
I'm 4.6 currently. But if I round my SDs to 2 or more decimal places, my HI is 4.5
There must be a significant number of people in this position at any given time.

Thanks for the detailed reply Alan, should have given more thought to the calculations before replying, my bad.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Thanks for the detailed reply Alan, should have given more thought to the calculations before replying, my bad.

My thinking was the same as yours, before I ran some calculations, so quite understandable.
The results were not what I was expecting, as the methods do look very different.

 

[Dunesman]

Which is impossible to achieve as has been explained before.

With UHS lower handicapped players had a better than even chance of winning handicap matches and a pretty much equal chance of winning large field stroke play competitions, but a very large and in my view unfair advantage in taking winnings from the prize pot. Under WHS lower handicaped players have an equal chance of winning in match play, a slightly lower chance than higher handicapped players of winning large field competitions but an equal chance of taking the money out of the prize pot.

Those are basically the choices, any tweaking of the system will resulting in movement one way or the other, personally I think the authorities have it about right but would not object if there was small movement back towards players with a lower handicap, but would be shouting loudly from the rooftops if we were ever to go back to how it was under UHS. Others I understand will take a different view, which is fine but these discussions take us nowhere if we don't except the limitations of any system of handicapping.

That does show the flaw then, and I would not dispute most of points you make, other than
- mentioning matchplay at all probably overstates its prominance. Would prizes determined by matchplay competitions even comprise 1% ? Possibly even as low as 0.1%.
and
- I thought UHS have low hcs an increased chance of winning large field events, not an equal one ?

But for the substance, large field competitions, we are agreeing - low handicappers have felt a very cold wind since the introduction of WHS. And this was the mistake. Their feeling 'its impossible to win now', has substance. And they are not consoled by their increased chance of finishing 5th.
This was the strategic mistake made by EG. They should not have neither hit low hcs with the double whammy of removing the low hc advantage, and, putting them at a disadvantage for wins. This is why my beef is with EG rather than WHS on this point They did NOT implement WHS to suit the local prevailing golfing culture here, despite as you correctly describe earlier, having the scope within the WHS framework, to do so.
I accept there isnrt a pefect balance - IF - one is trying to weigh winning and taking-money-from-the-prizepot as two equal poles that have to be traded off. But they are not. Winning should have been the prim factor, and allowance etc optimised to level the chances of all handicaps, as best as possible, for winning. Consequential imbalances in high non winning finishes, accepted as the price to be paid for being unable to flatten the two criteria.

 

[Dunesman]

Certainly way more comparable than they have ever been before, given the fundamental differences in systems prior to WHS. As usual with these debates it seems some would like the perfect to get in the way of the good.

If English handicaps still average 3 shots higher than US ones, there is something seriously amiss. Are we simply inferior golfing genetics to them ?

 

[Colin L]

If English handicaps still average 3 shots higher than US ones, there is something seriously amiss. Are we simply inferior golfing genetics to them ?

From all that I have understood from participating in American forums, the likelihood is that handicaps in the CONGU countries are in general more likely to be played to the Rules and to be a true measure of performance. I wouldn't be surprised if the same could be said of EGA handicaps.

 

[Dunesman]

From all that I have understood from participating in American forums, the likelihood is that handicaps in the CONGU countries are in general more likely to be played to the Rules and to be a true measure of performance. I wouldn't be surprised if the same could be said of EGA handicaps.

Quite possibly. Making the point of a common handicap system a fool's errand.

 

[Colin L]

Quite possibly. Making the point of a common handicap system a fool's errand.

What I said does not support that conclusion.

 

[doublebogey7]

If English handicaps still average 3 shots higher than US ones, there is something seriously amiss. Are we simply inferior golfing genetics to them ?

As far as I can assertain the figure is closer to 2, but lets not guibble over that. I don't know why there is a difference but doubt it is a single factor. One such factor could be that only around 10% of US golfers have a handicap, where as in the UK it is double that. In terms of population in the UK around 1.4% of a have handicap in the USA it is around half of that.

 

[doublebogey7]

That does show the flaw then, and I would not dispute most of points you make, other than
- mentioning matchplay at all probably overstates its prominance. Would prizes determined by matchplay competitions even comprise 1% ? Possibly even as low as 0.1%.
and
- I thought UHS have low hcs an increased chance of winning large field events, not an equal one ?

But for the substance, large field competitions, we are agreeing - low handicappers have felt a very cold wind since the introduction of WHS. And this was the mistake. Their feeling 'its impossible to win now', has substance. And they are not consoled by their increased chance of finishing 5th.
This was the strategic mistake made by EG. They should not have neither hit low hcs with the double whammy of removing the low hc advantage, and, putting them at a disadvantage for wins. This is why my beef is with EG rather than WHS on this point They did NOT implement WHS to suit the local prevailing golfing culture here, despite as you correctly describe earlier, having the scope within the WHS framework, to do so.
I accept there isnrt a pefect balance - IF - one is trying to weigh winning and taking-money-from-the-prizepot as two equal poles that have to be traded off. But they are not. Winning should have been the prim factor, and allowance etc optimised to level the chances of all handicaps, as best as possible, for winning. Consequential imbalances in high non winning finishes, accepted as the price to be paid for being unable to flatten the two criteria.

I wholly disagree fundementally with that. If club handicap competitions were all about finding the best golfer then clearly who wins is more important than who takes a prize, but it isn't I have my day in the sun in a field of 140 my name goes on a trophy and a board in the club house, the following day and I will be lucky if my mates buy me a cup of tea. Most handicap golfers at all levels understand the absurdity of that and take it as such. The scratch golfers at my club are only really interested in winning the scratch events and getting in the scratch and county teams, though they do enter our clubs competitions when they can. Under UHS cat 4 golfers barely got 10% of their entry fee back in prizes, Cat ones were around 40% up on the deal, Cat 3 & 4 golfers were basically subsidising the better players golf, that is fundamentally unfair in my view.

 

[AussieKB]

Bad news is I went down point 9 last Saturday,
but the good news is I went out point 5 today.......yippee

go the Sandbagger.

 

[rulefan]

Bad news is I went down point 9 last Saturday,
but the good news is I went out point 5 today.......yippee

go the Sandbagger.

HI or DH?

 

[rosecott]

HI or DH?

Who cares?

 

[jim8flog]

You don’t even have to walk into the golf club

You can do it from your car

With a card someone needs to authenticate it after it’s been signed by two people

EG app - a mate can sort it out for you

Where do you get that requirement from?

Our County rep has already told us we do not need to check every card returned.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Where do you get that requirement from?

Our County rep has already told us we do not need to check every card returned.

How do you put a paper card into the system

 

[jim8flog]

Who enters the paper score card onto the system ?

Where I play if the player uses a card rather than an app the player enters the card on to the system via the PSI screen.

 

[wjemather]

With a card someone needs to authenticate it after it’s been signed by two people

How do you put a paper card into the system

There is no additional "authentication" performed by a 3rd person inputting the score. Perhaps you were searching for a different word?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

There is no additional "authentication" performed by a 3rd person inputting the score. Perhaps you were searching for a different word?

Nope - pre WHS any scorecards for handicap put in the box were checked when entering into the ISV

 

[wjemather]

Nope - pre WHS any scorecards for handicap put in the box were checked when entering into the ISV

So the word you were looking for was check, not authenticate. Got it.

Anyway, what checking do you imagine went on?