Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 30522]

Submitting scores throughout the winter happened long before WHS was even dreamed of. No-one ever complained about it then, but now people hear about clubs being encouraged to facilitate scores for handicapping all year round if they can, all of a sudden it's a problem.

There was a winter period, this is just a lie.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The old system was antiquated, inflexible and had more problems than just the one of significantly advantaging low handicappers.

Oh, now it "significanlty adantaged low handicappers"? You can't even recall your own arguments, you just throw stuff out there and hope it sticks

Well that I'm afraid is just another of your hyperbolic lies, there was a slight very marginal favouring of low handicaps as was statistically proven, not in any way "significant". Now there's a bias to high handicaps

 

[Deleted member 30522]

No, it means it was outdated and made obsolete by advances in technology, data analysis, etc.
It was a relic from a pre-internet world when everything had to be done locally; a simple system designed to be administered manually without the aid of technology (except perhaps a calculator).

"the internet" and UHS launched at almost the same time, but hey, if it makes you feel clever

As for data analysis, it's clear from the handicap allowances they've made mandatory that there was none or very little. eg. how can you explain Texas Scramble allowances?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Oh, now it "significanlty adantaged low handicappers"? You can't even recall your own arguments, you just throw stuff out there and hope it sticks

Well that I'm afraid is just another of your hyperbolic lies, there was a slight very marginal favouring of low handicaps as was statistically proven, not in any way "significant". Now there's a bias to high handicaps

I agree with your observation. Argue for argument sake it seems.

Anyway, I doubt if the old system gave any advantage to low handicappers across the board. My feeling, from being a single figure player for 43 years, is that I only had a chance to win if I was playing and practicing fairly regularly. I don't think I stood a cat's chance in hell if I turned up twice a month and just had a few practice swings on the first tee before playing. Now I can do that and see my handicap jump up to whatever that approach to playing golf needs it to be for me to have a great chance.

The old system favoured those who applied themselves to the game. Call that old-fashioned if you wish but we all lose if we dumb the game down.

 

[rulefan]

As for data analysis, it's clear from the handicap allowances they've made mandatory

Isn't Appendix C headed "Recommended Handicap Allowance"?

 

[PaulMdj]

I agree with your observation. Argue for argument sake it seems.

Anyway, I doubt if the old system gave any advantage to low handicappers across the board. My feeling, from being a single figure player for 43 years, is that I only had a chance to win if I was playing and practicing fairly regularly. I don't think I stood a cat's chance in hell if I turned up twice a month and just had a few practice swings on the first tee before playing. Now I can do that and see my handicap jump up to whatever that approach to playing golf needs it to be for me to have a great chance.

The old system favoured those who applied themselves to the game. Call that old-fashioned if you wish but we all lose if we dumb the game down.

The only observation I’d have on your post is it seems to be all about winning now, previously, imo, it was more about becoming a “badge of honour” to be a Cat 1 Golfer and less about the winning.

The WHS hasn’t improved a Cat 1’s chance of winning, but in all honesty they stood very little chance previously either.

 

[D-S]

Isn't Appendix C headed "Recommended Handicap Allowance"?

Under EG the handicap allowances are mandatory, even for Texas Scrambles.

 

[wjemather]

"the internet" and UHS launched at almost the same time, but hey, if it makes you feel clever

UHS arrived in 2004, but it was not a new system; it was (barely) an evolution of the ("Australian") system first introduced in 1983.
The CDH didn't even launch until 2009 (2012 in Scotland).

 

[rulefan]

There was a winter period, this is just a lie.

The only time we didn't play for handicap updates was if the course was flooded (literally).

 

[Voyager EMH]

Nett double bogey adjustments and Stableford adjustments are the same thing.

But in UK and Australia they are not the same thing when it comes to calculation of Score Differential, because UK uses 100% and Australia uses 93% with regards to SD.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

The only observation I’d have on your post is it seems to be all about winning now, previously, imo, it was more about becoming a “badge of honour” to be a Cat 1 Golfer and less about the winning.

The WHS hasn’t improved a Cat 1’s chance of winning, but in all honesty they stood very little chance previously either.

Well perhaps to an extent but it's also nicer to tee it up in a competition thinking you have a chance of winning.

That gets the juices flowing and heightens the competitive enjoyment.

Unfortunately that's all gone south since WHS for many, including myself. I think what kept me playing, and got me addicted to the game, was the competitive side. Lose that and we could see numbers dwindle. I would suggest that there are many positive comments on WHS by those who are still in the honeymoon period of their golfing marriage. Be warned, the fun of improving soon wears off and you're left with competition as the reason you get up at 6am on a Saturday. Let's try and make it fair competition.

 

[wjemather]

But in UK and Australia they are not the same thing when it comes to calculation of Score Differential, because UK uses 100% and Australia uses 93% with regards to SD.

True, but not relevant to the statement you made earlier.

 

[wjemather]

There was a winter period...

Not everywhere.

 

[rulefan]

Under EG the handicap allowances are mandatory, even for Texas Scrambles.

Oops. I had forgotten EG (and I think CONGU) had gone UDI. I was simply referring to the manual.

 

[D-S]

There has been a distinct change to winter golf even though there was no official winter cut off.

We used to just have monthly qualifying Stablefords pre WHS, but subsequently we have had a rated shorter course that is almost always ‘qualifying’ in winter.
Many clubs araound here never played any qualifiers or had a qualifying course in the winter, they now have or are in the process of getting a rated winter course mainly because there is pressure from some to submit GP scores.
Apart from a few beginners almost everyone who submitted GP more than 3 scores in winter last year saw their handicaps increase some up to cap levels. Unsurprising when courses, whiose rating is mainly down to length, playing significantly longer due to both temperature and lack of roll - uneven greens and indifferent greenside lies further exacerbate this.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

There has been a distinct change to winter golf even though there was no official winter cut off.

We used to just have monthly qualifying Stablefords pre WHS, but subsequently we have had a rated shorter course that is almost always ‘qualifying’ in winter.
Many clubs araound here never played any qualifiers or had a qualifying course in the winter, they now have or are in the process of getting a rated winter course mainly because there is pressure from some to submit GP scores.
Apart from a few beginners almost everyone who submitted GP more than 3 scores in winter last year saw their handicaps increase some up to cap levels. Unsurprising when courses, whiose rating is mainly down to length, playing significantly longer due to both temperature and lack of roll - uneven greens and indifferent greenside lies further exacerbate this.

We use mats through the winter and a shortened course and hardly any rough. High handicappers have a field day. A duff off a mat still goes well enough. No chance we'll ever have qualifiers for those 5 months.

 

[Voyager EMH]

True, but not relevant to the statement you made earlier.

Entirely relevant to the point that I made earlier, because as you said - true.
And the point that I made earlier was true. Your finding fault in that point was erroneous.

Popcorn anyone?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The only time we didn't play for handicap updates was if the course was flooded (literally).

Not at any club round here, winter period and there were no qualifiers, maybe England different as it's marginally milder

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Isn't Appendix C headed "Recommended Handicap Allowance"?

Yes.

But SG made them mandatory, presume rest of GB&I did the same. For Open Scrambles we're now seeing clubs ignore that edict, and going back to 10%

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Has there been any indication from R&A as to when we can expect to see any outputs as a result of this survey?

My feeling is that they've got one final chance to save this system and it better be good.

The big change, and it needs to be considerable, is the HI calculation. If we get that right then everything else is acceptable.

The main aim must be to encourage, and reward, endeavour and improvement that sees a player achieve his level of consistency. In short, your handicap must reflect your game when you are applying yourself. If you play well, and everyone knows when they play well, you should be in with a shout of a prize. You certainly shouldn't be beaten by a score that is unachievable by yourself. Ok, I know that happened very occasionally with the old system but it wasn't the norm and it wasn't the handicap system to blame, as it often is now.