Official WHS Survey

[Dunesman]

I didn’t say we shouldn’t have any handicap system or WHS specifically makes people lazier! Any handicap system that isn’t heavily biased towards lower players removes the incentive to improve.

An incentive to improve is not a goal of a handicap system. You are expecting from it, something that is not its role to provide.
A biased handicap system is a flawed system. Neither fish nor fowl.
Unhandicapped competitions are there to find and reward the best golfers.
Handicapped ones are for all golfers to compete in a playing field levelled to their ability, and so find the golfer who plays best relayive to that, on a given day.
Designing a system favouring better golfers would be a corruption, and so meaningless.

 

[rulefan]

Designing a system favouring golfers from any range of ability would be a corruption, and so meaningless.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Many players want a handicap that reflects their ability.
They find it somewhere between difficult and impossible to accept that not playing to your handicap 80% of the time is excellent/spot on/perfect according to the system.
So they say the system is bad/wrong/stupid and develop their own strategy to have a handicap that they find more acceptable.
And never apply 95% to calculate stableford points and then moan "I made 35 points, but the blummin 95% has given me 34."

I have reported what I have observed and continue to observe at my club.

 

[AussieKB]

OH no......a comp that keeps burglars out, how terrible.

 

[IanMac]

Designing a system favouring golfers from any range of ability would be a corruption, and so meaningless.

Imagine designing a system that used an average of the 8 best scores out of the last 20 regardless of the ability/handicap! Clearly that would favour the higher, and less consistent, handicapper.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Designing a system favouring golfers from any range of ability would be a corruption, and so meaningless.

And so we agree, WHS is a disaster

 

[Dunesman]

Just one club, and limited sample of competitions admittedly. Coming from this push that low handicaps can no longer win, our club introduced categories this year as a trial for some stableford weekend competitions. Ranges picked to roughly have a quarter of the field in each one. Numbers in each varied slightly week to week as they didnt modify them, but overall it averaged out at thirtysomething golfers in each. Categories were 11 and lower, 12-17, 18-23, and 24+.
14 such competitions.
Winners if there had been an overall prize :
-11 : none
12-17 : one
18-23 : seven
24+ : six

It has quite added fuel to the fire, in an I told you so tone, with a push that the board comps now need modified rules for next year. As a 20, I am in the right group ! But really, it feels uncomfortable, and I am sympathetic to some change.
It doesnt seem to be the very high handicaps being favoured really. I was thinking of suggesting that we change the 95% multiplier for the competition handicap, which would at least move the trend in the right direction if the software can do it. What isnt so easy to get for comparison, is previous years, as we didnt have the categories to show this so easily, let alone the system before WHS was introduced. But certainly, it looks that if you are below 18, you aren't really in the competition overall. Categories in themselves, while they distribute prizes more fairly, arent really a satisfying fix to a problem that should be fixable with 85% maybe rather than 95%.

 

[IanMac]

Just one club, and limited sample of competitions admittedly. Coming from this push that low handicaps can no longer win, our club introduced categories this year as a trial for some stableford weekend competitions. Ranges picked to roughly have a quarter of the field in each one. Numbers in each varied slightly week to week as they didnt modify them, but overall it averaged out at thirtysomething golfers in each. Categories were 11 and lower, 12-17, 18-23, and 24+.
14 such competitions.
Winners if there had been an overall prize :
-11 : none
12-17 : one
18-23 : seven
24+ : six

It has quite added fuel to the fire, in an I told you so tone, with a push that the board comps now need modified rules for next year. As a 20, I am in the right group ! But really, it feels uncomfortable, and I am sympathetic to some change.
It doesnt seem to be the very high handicaps being favoured really. I was thinking of suggesting that we change the 95% multiplier for the competition handicap, which would at least move the trend in the right direction if the software can do it. What isnt so easy to get for comparison, is previous years, as we didnt have the categories to show this so easily, let alone the system before WHS was introduced. But certainly, it looks that if you are below 18, you aren't really in the competition overall. Categories in themselves, while they distribute prizes more fairly, arent really a satisfying fix to a problem that should be fixable with 85% maybe rather than 95%.

You are not alone in feeling uncomfortable. A lot of my 12-22 handicap friends feel the same. One in particular used to be off 8 and now his index is 16. He hits a good ball and knows his bad play can be really bad but he's still capable of shooting low when he gets in the mood. In that mood he can't lose now which is embarrassing for him. Lower guys just don't have that range of scoring.
Competition is not about winning it's about the enjoyment of competing fairly. It feels good to play well and if someone plays better and beats you that's fine if you feel it was a fair system.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Just one club, and limited sample of competitions admittedly. Coming from this push that low handicaps can no longer win, our club introduced categories this year as a trial for some stableford weekend competitions. Ranges picked to roughly have a quarter of the field in each one. Numbers in each varied slightly week to week as they didnt modify them, but overall it averaged out at thirtysomething golfers in each. Categories were 11 and lower, 12-17, 18-23, and 24+.
14 such competitions.
Winners if there had been an overall prize :
-11 : none
12-17 : one
18-23 : seven
24+ : six

It has quite added fuel to the fire, in an I told you so tone, with a push that the board comps now need modified rules for next year. As a 20, I am in the right group ! But really, it feels uncomfortable, and I am sympathetic to some change.
It doesnt seem to be the very high handicaps being favoured really. I was thinking of suggesting that we change the 95% multiplier for the competition handicap, which would at least move the trend in the right direction if the software can do it. What isnt so easy to get for comparison, is previous years, as we didnt have the categories to show this so easily, let alone the system before WHS was introduced. But certainly, it looks that if you are below 18, you aren't really in the competition overall. Categories in themselves, while they distribute prizes more fairly, arent really a satisfying fix to a problem that should be fixable with 85% maybe rather than 95%.

We have a maximum 24 for our prestigious board comps. Higher handicaps may enter, but they play off 24.
If I split our winners for 2024 into three groups it goes,

up to 8 - one (7)
9 to 15 - two (9 and 15)
16 to 24 - seven (16, 16, 18, 20, 21, 21 and 24)

If our club were to replace 95% with 80% for board comps only, I would not complain.

 

[wjemather]

We have a maximum 24 for our prestigious board comps. Higher handicaps may enter, but they play off 24.
If I split our winners for 2024 into three groups it goes,

up to 8 - one (7)
9 to 15 - two (9 and 15)
16 to 24 - seven (16, 16, 18, 20, 21, 21 and 24)

If our club were to replace 95% with 80% for board comps only, I would not complain.

Using slightly differently handicap ranges gives a different impression:

Above average ability (up to 14): 7, 9
About average (15-20): 15, 16, 16, 18, 20
Lower than average (21 and higher): 21, 21, 24

 

[Voyager EMH]

Using slightly differently handicap ranges gives a different impression:

Above average ability (up to 14): 7, 9
About average (15-20): 15, 16, 16, 18, 20
Lower than average (21 and higher): 21, 21, 24

Or

6 and below - zero winners (good golfers)
7 and above - all winners (not as good golfers)

 

[rulefan]

We have a maximum 24 for our prestigious board comps. Higher handicaps may enter, but they play off 24.
If I split our winners for 2024 into three groups it goes,

up to 8 - one (7)
9 to 15 - two (9 and 15)
16 to 24 - seven (16, 16, 18, 20, 21, 21 and 24)

If our club were to replace 95% with 80% for board comps only, I would not complain.

How many players were in each group?
Which group are you in?

 

[wjemather]

Or

6 and below - zero winners
7 and above - all winners

Precisely.
It's unfortunate that handicap brackets are frequently chosen to present a particular picture, rather than reflect the composition of the field(s).

 

[Voyager EMH]

How many players were in each group?
Which group are you in?

Go to howdidido, Scraptoft, Mens Handicaps, and take a sample.
Generally, the lower the handicap the more likely that they participate, so you do need to bias your sample that way.
You will have to ignore mon-fri members and PMG members, they don't play board comps.

I've quoted playing handicaps. So you need to use CR-Par = 0.8, SR 132. Good luck.

I started the year 4.3 currently 4.6 and turned 64 this year.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Or

6 and below - zero winners (good golfers)
7 and above - all winners (not as good golfers)

Come on Voyager, you know by now that MJWeather knows everyone's club better than they know it themselves
Have to ask MJ, you've not found anything wrong with my earlier posts so I presume you're just going to pretend you didn;t lie?

Question is, why are you so vociferous in the defence of WHS when people are criticising it, you're not countering those points, you're just saying we're wrong, even when stats are thrown at you, you come back with false stats of your own and make a mug of yourself, but back you keep coming? What's in it for you?

 

[wjemather]

Go to howdidido, Scraptoft, Mens Handicaps, and take a sample.
Generally, the lower the handicap the more likely that they participate, so you do need to bias your sample that way.
You will have to ignore mon-fri members and PMG members, they don't play board comps.

I've quoted playing handicaps. So you need to use CR-Par = 0.8, SR 132. Good luck.

I started the year 4.3 currently 4.6 and turned 64 this year.

Just looking at a handful of medals that appear to be trophy/board comps - single figure PH golfers make up about 15% of the field (sometimes less), with very few of them below 6. If that is representative of the fields in the trophy/board comps you quoted above, their 20% win rate is pretty good.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

You are not alone in feeling uncomfortable. A lot of my 12-22 handicap friends feel the same. One in particular used to be off 8 and now his index is 16. He hits a good ball and knows his bad play can be really bad but he's still capable of shooting low when he gets in the mood. In that mood he can't lose now which is embarrassing for him. Lower guys just don't have that range of scoring.
Competition is not about winning it's about the enjoyment of competing fairly. It feels good to play well and if someone plays better and beats you that's fine if you feel it was a fair system.

I'm sorry if this guy can't get in the mood just for 8 rounds in every 20 , then sorry this guy is embarrassing himself

 

[Voyager EMH]

Come on Voyager, you know by now that MJWeather knows everyone's club better than they know it themselves
Have to ask MJ, you've not found anything wrong with my earlier posts so I presume you're just going to pretend you didn;t lie?

Question is, why are you so vociferous in the defence of WHS when people are criticising it, you're not countering those points, you're just saying we're wrong, even when stats are thrown at you, you come back with false stats of your own and make a mug of yourself, but back you keep coming? What's in it for you?

I got a bit confused there.
I take it that the second paragraph is not addressed to me. At first I thought it was.

Anyway, not addressing this to you, if you'll pardon me.

I've done a very rough calculation for men at my club in a board comp trying to take into account PMG, mon-fri, 2 pro players, house members etc.

up to 8 - 10%
9-15 - 35%
16 and over - 55%

But this would need some more adjustment as the 8 and below group are far more likely to participate and the 16 and over group will contain many that won't bother.

So 1 out of 10 comps won by the 8 and below handicaps is spot on, 10%. But this is a very small sample.
The middle group 9-15 seem to be very hard done by collecting only 2 out of ten trophies when they are 35% of the field.
But the 16 and over players are doing very well out of it collecting 70% of trophies although representing 55% of the filed.

WJ created his own categories to put the 9-handicapper in the low group in order to double the number of winners in that group. Well done!

 

[Dunesman]

The results I showed above from our club are causing discussion precisely because it broke the groups into even (ish) numbers of golfers. I know stats can be very misleading to those of us not specially trained in it, but it does seem to show low players arent competing with high ones, and its not because the high indexes outnumber them.

Also, its not (apart from on 27 capper who had 47 points) that the scores were either, from very high handicappers, or, that the scores were consistently outrageously high from the higher categories. In fact, if the list of all 120-140 players were printed in order without the categories, it woudnt stand out that there is something wildly wrong. lower cappers were well represented at the top of the sheet, and the winner was only by a shot (winning scores other than the 47 were 39-42). Its only when you look at the big picture you see its always the 18+ getting the win by that shot or so.

And I dont think its bandits. Many higher men also feel there is something askew and I dont think would object to a change from the few I play with. One suggested that vanity handicapping might be a factor : there are no vanity 25 handicappers. Higher men are probably more comfortable letting their handicap be what it be. But that lower men maybe are straining to keep their handicap from rising for the vanity aspect, but the other side of that coin is that they are maybe a shot or two less competitive, and so reducing their chances of winning. Or maybe that is just showing that higher handicappers have their prejudices against low men, similar to the low men who think all high men are bandits, I dont know !

 

[wjemather]

I've done a very rough calculation for men at my club in a board comp trying to take into account PMG, mon-fri, 2 pro players, house members etc.

up to 8 - 10%
9-15 - 35%
16 and over - 55%

But this would need some more adjustment as the 8 and below group are far more likely to participate and the 16 and over group will contain many that won't bother.

So 1 out of 10 comps won by the 8 and below handicaps is spot on, 10%. But this is a very small sample.
The middle group 9-15 seem to be very hard done by collecting only 2 out of ten trophies when they are 35% of the field.
But the 16 and over players are doing very well out of it collecting 70% of trophies although representing 55% of the filed.

WJ created his own categories to put the 9-handicapper in the low group in order to double the number of winners in that group. Well done!

As I said earlier, the lines can be drawn to suit a point of view, so you're making a perfectly valid observation.

However, the brackets I used are based on average handicaps, and were taken from elsewhere - it would have been easy to include the 21s in the middle if I wanted to claim the highers being disadvantaged.