Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 30522]

Real golfers can and do vary enormously from the standard model golfers used to produce the ratings. One individual's perception of what is difficult (or not) from a relatively small sample size is not a reliable benchmark for deciding whether course ratings are accurate. Nor are they a model golfer with the consistency required in order to usefully compare performance across the various courses with respect to the ratings.

I will be back with our course ratings when they come through. Yellow currently 67.8, white 70.2, no changes since 12 years ago.

I'm guessing 69 and 71.5

Let's see

 

[wjemather]

This is nonsense, they are not set out anywhere, CSS was, PCC is a big secret

Why do you insist on denying indisputable facts?
The process is summarised here: https://www.randa.org/roh/interpretations/rule-5#5_6_1

 

[AussieKB]

In 2016 I had a couple of General Managers from England staying with me in West OZ, one off a 5 and the other off a 12 handicap.

I told them that when the English (World) Handicap System came in that the 12 marker would go out to 16, they both laughed and said I had no idea how it works.

This year playing in England the 5 was now a 7, and the 12 played off 20, he had all kinds of excuses on why he went up, but each time we played match play he enjoyed all those extra shots, the 7 marker was not happy with his handicap as he had never been higher than a 5 handicap for over 30 years.

I did mention that there would be a lot of debate or arguing about this new system and it seems I have been proved right.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Lots of people saying they are happy others saying they're not. For a handicap system to work the vast majority of players in a competition need to feel they have a chance of winning if they play well, i.e. to their potential. That's simply not the case since the introduction of WHS. The system just doesn't feel fair. We are told that statistically this and statistically that but golf is a game, and golfers are a breed, that cannot easily be measured with statistics.

In my view the system should not make it easy to go up just because you're not playing to your potential. Ok, if you're potential has changed due to injury or age then an adjustment should be considered but by a human being.

 

[wjemather]

Lots of people saying they are happy others saying they're not. For a handicap system to work the vast majority of players in a competition need to feel they have a chance of winning if they play well, i.e. to their potential. That's simply not the case since the introduction of WHS. The system just doesn't feel fair. We are told that statistically this and statistically that but golf is a game, and golfers are a breed, that cannot easily be measured with statistics.

In my view the system should not make it easy to go up just because you're not playing to your potential. Ok, if you're potential has changed due to injury or age then an adjustment should be considered but by a human being.

What players feel like their chances are (or should be) is irrelevant to having a fair and equitable handicap system. Many players (particularly low handicappers) still have a distorted view of what their chances should be due to 100+ years of successive handicap systems that favoured them greatly.

Golf is actually a sport that can be measured extremely well with statistics.

Subjective handicapping is surely the last thing anyone would be happy with? It would also be a massive backwards step, to the days when handicaps varied wildly depending on the club that issued them.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Lots of people saying they are happy others saying they're not. For a handicap system to work the vast majority of players in a competition need to feel they have a chance of winning if they play well, i.e. to their potential. That's simply not the case since the introduction of WHS. The system just doesn't feel fair. We are told that statistically this and statistically that but golf is a game, and golfers are a breed, that cannot easily be measured with statistics.

In my view the system should not make it easy to go up just because you're not playing to your potential. Ok, if you're potential has changed due to injury or age then an adjustment should be considered but by a human being.

Exactly!!

Your potential is your low index, you've been there, and except in cases of simply getting older, or temporary or permanent impairment, you can do that again. The rate of increase possible in the new system is one of the biggest flaws in a very flawed system

 

[Deleted member 36483]

What players feel like their chances are (or should be) is irrelevant to having a fair and equitable handicap system. Many players (particularly low handicappers) still have a distorted view of what their chances should be due to 100+ years of successive handicap systems that favoured them greatly.

Golf is actually a sport that can be measured extremely well with statistics.

Subjective handicapping is surely the last thing anyone would be happy with? It would also be a massive backwards step, to the days when handicaps varied wildly depending on the club that issued them.

We have opposite views and I am aware there are two different camps. Many accuse low handicappers of being the problem. They are more likely to practice and therefore more likely to score consistently and therefore more likely to have an average of 8 that is a narrow range. A simple mean average of 8 is therefore not good for the consistent golfers. Their best is not that much better than their average. One of the field with a wide range will win more often than not because there are more people who don't practice. But in a modern world that's what we seem to want to happen. We should reward those who just want to have a go once a week or less. Hollow victories in my book.

This is what I mean when I say people think the system isn't fair. Yes, they are mainly low handicappers but also anyone who applies themselves and achieves, what use to be, the holy grail of consistency.

The club game I once knew and loved is no longer viable if consistency is no longer regarded as the measure of success.

I hope things change before we see a split amongst amateurs because I know these consistent golfers have a hunger to compete and will find a way.

 

[Deleted member 36474]

I think it's fantastic, from a personal point of view I had no chance of getting to scratch but it is definitely achievable under this system.
Never going to win anything but that's never bothered me always just tried to play as well as I could.
Just need to play better, this year have been a right off due to crap play and off course issues with elderly parents taking up a lot of my time.

 

[D-S]

I think it's fantastic, from a personal point of view I had no chance of getting to scratch but it is definitely achievable under this system.
Never going to win anything but that's never bothered me always just tried to play as well as I could.
Just need to play better, this year have been a right off due to crap play and off course issues with elderly parents taking up a lot of my time.

So why exactly do you think it’s fantastic? - solely because you believe you don’t have to be as good to get to scratch under WHS than UHS?

 

[Deleted member 36474]

So why exactly do you think it’s fantastic? - solely because you believe you don’t have to be as good to get to scratch under WHS than UHS?

All you need is 8 decent differentials and bang, scratch you are so no, you don't have to be as good.

My only issue is what is scratch these days?

Is it and index or course handicap of zero?

At least under UHS you knew -0.5 to 0.4 was scratch. A quick look at the course nearest my house tells me I get 2 shots off back tees and I'm off plus 5 off some what I can only assume are tees for non golfers. Confusing to say the least....

 

[wjemather]

My only issue is what is scratch these days?

A HI of 0.0

 

[clubchamp98]

So why exactly do you think it’s fantastic? - solely because you believe you don’t have to be as good to get to scratch under WHS than UHS?

You can get to scratch without leaving the car park.
As long as you have a dodgy mate to attest your -2 score cards.
Love this app.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

All you need is 8 decent differentials and bang, scratch you are so no, you don't have to be as good.

My only issue is what is scratch these days?

Is it and index or course handicap of zero?

At least under UHS you knew -0.5 to 0.4 was scratch. A quick look at the course nearest my house tells me I get 2 shots off back tees and I'm off plus 5 off some what I can only assume are tees for non golfers. Confusing to say the least....

Scratch is a 0.0 index. The only number that cannot be affected by the slope adjustment element of the course handicap calculation.

The second part of that course handicap calculation adjusts to give you a handicap against par. The old term for the course rating was standard scratch score, SSS, and there is a course rating for each tee colour. Course rating is therefore what a scratch player should score. So you get the course rating - par added to your 0 for each tee. Those non golfers' tees you mentioned effectively have an SSS well below par.

 

[wjemather]

We have opposite views and I am aware there are two different camps. Many accuse low handicappers of being the problem. They are more likely to practice and therefore more likely to score consistently and therefore more likely to have an average of 8 that is a narrow range. A simple mean average of 8 is therefore not good for the consistent golfers. Their best is not that much better than their average. One of the field with a wide range will win more often than not because there are more people who don't practice. But in a modern world that's what we seem to want to happen. We should reward those who just want to have a go once a week or less. Hollow victories in my book.

This is what I mean when I say people think the system isn't fair. Yes, they are mainly low handicappers but also anyone who applies themselves and achieves, what use to be, the holy grail of consistency.

The club game I once knew and loved is no longer viable if consistency is no longer regarded as the measure of success.

I hope things change before we see a split amongst amateurs because I know these consistent golfers have a hunger to compete and will find a way.

Ah, the fallacy that lower handicappers practice (and play) more and handicap systems should reward practice and consistency. How do you see that working exactly, particularly with regards to avoiding favouring erratic low handicappers who don't practice and only play once a week (or less)?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Ah, the fallacy that lower handicappers practice (and play) more and handicap systems should reward practice and consistency. How do you see that working exactly, particularly with regards to avoiding favouring erratic low handicappers who don't practice and only play once a week (or less)?

What should the aim of the handicapping system be if not to encourage endeavour?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

You can get to scratch without leaving the car park.
As long as you have a dodgy mate to attest your -2 score cards.
Love this app.

Amazing that we have an app looking after something so precious. I can only think that someone is making a load of cash out of this fiasco.

 

[wjemather]

What should the aim of the handicapping system be if not to encourage endeavour?

The aim is fair and equitable competition between players of different demonstrated abilities.

Improving players will be ahead of the handicap system, so they always have an inherent advantage.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

The aim is fair and equitable competition between players of different demonstrated abilities.

Improving players will be ahead of the handicap system, so they always have an inherent advantage.

Yes but it's now very easy to become an improving player. Anyone can do it under the excuse that they have had a poor streak of form for a few months. That's the biggest weakness. Open to exploitation. There is really no need to have a system that facilitates handicaps to go up unless something beyond poor form is to blame.

 

[Captain_Black.]

The aim is fair and equitable competition between players of different demonstrated abilities.

Improving players will be ahead of the handicap system, so they always have an inherent advantage.

Ahh, the old "improving player" ruse.
Yeah, I've heard that a few times before.
Almost always when a Stableford score in the high 40's gets posted.
Obviously, there are quite a few "improving players" usually in their 60's in senior comps & opens.
Maybe they have all taken a 20 year break & are "returning improving players?"

 

[Deleted member 30522]

What players feel like their chances are (or should be) is irrelevant to having a fair and equitable handicap system. Many players (particularly low handicappers) still have a distorted view of what their chances should be due to 100+ years of successive handicap systems that favoured them greatly.

Golf is actually a sport that can be measured extremely well with statistics.

Subjective handicapping is surely the last thing anyone would be happy with? It would also be a massive backwards step, to the days when handicaps varied wildly depending on the club that issued them.

*MARGINALLY

Now there's a penalty for skill where this system DOES favour higher handicappers, stats from HDID have proved that low handicappers are disadvantaged proportionally