Official WHS Survey

[wjemather]

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 those 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, tbat the scored 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, 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 fee 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 !

Some good points here. However, competing is not only about winning, but high finishes (e.g. top-10%) and how frequently comps are won with exceptional scores that are extremely unlikely for a lower handicapper. Often low handicappers will be within a couple of strokes/points of the winning score (if not tied) and there are no unattainable scores, so they are competitive.

Low handicappers are more likely to only enter comps (or general play scores) when they feel they are playing well, whereas everyone else will give it a go regardless.

 

[Backache]

Have to say the bigger problem at our place since the cheats charter was introduced is just that there are far fewer people entering the competitions.

 

[AussieKB]

Played in a comp last week and the winner had 47 points, I was gutted that I missed that putt to shoot 7 under to lose on count-back.

 

[Dunesman]

Some good points here. However, competing is not only about winning, but high finishes (e.g. top-10%) and how frequently comps are won with exceptional scores that are extremely unlikely for a lower handicapper. Often low handicappers will be within a couple of strokes/points of the winning score (if not tied) and there are no unattainable scores, so they are competitive.

Low handicappers are more likely to only enter comps (or general play scores) when they feel they are playing well, whereas everyone else will give it a go regardless.

I think competing in a handicap competition does come with an implication ansd common expectation that winning is open to all more or less equitably. The competitions we had, were, apart from one, not won with exceptionally high scores. A low man being within a shot or two of the winning score is fine for a single instance in isolation. But when it seems a consistent disadvantage and a distinct skewing of the equal distribution of winners week in week out, then I would think that is not OK for a handicap system.

For the scores we had, it looks as if the 24+ division were about 3 handicaps shots fewer, and the 18-23 group 2 or even 1 fewer, a few of the winning scores would move to the lower handicap groups. So 85% rather than 95% looks about right for us to try next year. I am not on our committee but hear its on the agenda for the AGM in December. Not sure if it will apply to the board comps and they will stay 95% or just for these 2 or so stablefords per month. The mood seems to be that it has to change for the boards though as there is only one winner.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Some good points here. However, competing is not only about winning, but high finishes (e.g. top-10%) and how frequently comps are won with exceptional scores that are extremely unlikely for a lower handicapper. Often low handicappers will be within a couple of strokes/points of the winning score (if not tied) and there are no unattainable scores, so they are competitive.

Low handicappers are more likely to only enter comps (or general play scores) when they feel they are playing well, whereas everyone else will give it a go regardless.

I had a look back in time to see when someone below 7 won one of our 10 board comps.
It happened in late Aug 21 when a chap shot a gross level par 70 - 5 = 65 to beat a 24-handicapper by one shot.
In early Aug 2021 a 6-handicapper shot 40 points to beat a 24-handicapper on best back nine.
Very narrow wins, but gives us some hope. No wins in the three years 2022/23/24 though for the under 7 handicappers.

This year's 7-handicapper who won a board comp is now 4.7.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Some good points here. However, competing is not only about winning, but high finishes (e.g. top-10%) and how frequently comps are won with exceptional scores that are extremely unlikely for a lower handicapper. Often low handicappers will be within a couple of strokes/points of the winning score (if not tied) and there are no unattainable scores, so they are competitive.

Low handicappers are more likely to only enter comps (or general play scores) when they feel they are playing well, whereas everyone else will give it a go regardless.

I find that the other way round at my club.
The low handicappers are the ones who are keen and play regularly so enter comps regardless. The higher handicappers include many with a "can-take-it-or-leave-it" attitude to comps.

 

[Backache]

I guess many of us are really asking ourselves the wrong questions in the WHS survey and we should be addressing the question. Would you rather have the ability to maintain integrity locally or to cheat internationally?
Personally I would rather have the former but considering the powers that be can rig their own system so that plebs can't get when they don't want them to get in it does make some kind of sense to them.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

A lot are suggesting there is a split between low and high handicappers but I think it's not that simple. The split is between consistent and inconsistent players. Higher handicap players generally are more inconsistent and lower more consistent but that's not true across the board. Simply dropping the allowances from 95% to 80%, for example, would make it even more difficult for the consistent 18 handicapper.

I believe that the simple average of 8 best scores and giving net double bogeys for a messed up hole are the fundamental problems with WHS.

 

[Voyager EMH]

A lot are suggesting there is a split between low and high handicappers but I think it's not that simple. The split is between consistent and inconsistent players. Higher handicap players generally are more inconsistent and lower more consistent but that's not true across the board. Simply dropping the allowances from 95% to 80%, for example, would make it even more difficult for the consistent 18 handicapper.

I believe that the simple average of 8 best scores and giving net double bogeys for a messed up hole are the fundamental problems with WHS.

How about something along the lines of, (?)

best 6 from 20 for over 20s
best 8 from 20 for 10 to 20
best 10 from 20 for 9.9 and below

Obviously, there would have to be more to it than that because of overlaps, but it in principal it would give the lower players higher handicaps.

The nett double bogey limit for SD calculation is OK with me, but we should treat stableford as a very rare novelty format.

 

[Golfloveruk]

Consistency in golf. Now there’s a topic for discussion!!

Maybe do away with stableford comps? Remove that safety net!

 

[doublebogey7]

A lot are suggesting there is a split between low and high handicappers but I think it's not that simple. The split is between consistent and inconsistent players. Higher handicap players generally are more inconsistent and lower more consistent but that's not true across the board. Simply dropping the allowances from 95% to 80%, for example, would make it even more difficult for the consistent 18 handicapper.

I believe that the simple average of 8 best scores and giving net double bogeys for a messed up hole are the fundamental problems with WHS.

Net double bogey was a fundamental part of UHS.

In any case please wexplain how that is part of the problem, when the complaint is that some handicaps are too high, getting rid of NDB would increase handicaps, particularly at the high end.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Net double bogey was a fundamental part of UHS.

In any case please wexplain how that is part of the problem, when the complaint is that some handicaps are too high, getting rid of NDB would increase handicaps, particularly at the high end.

I think it's too much to give a net double bogey to a hole that was messed up. I've explained some examples in previous posts. That hole should perhaps be ignored for handicap purposes. However that may cause issues with those trying to lower their handicap.

 

[doublebogey7]

I think it's too much to give a net double bogey to a hole that was messed up. I've explained some examples in previous posts. That hole should perhaps be ignored for handicap purposes. However that may cause issues with those trying to lower their handicap.

You can't simply ignore simply ignor a messed up hole as you would not the have an18 differential. So what score would your allocate to such a hole.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

You can't simply ignore simply ignor a messed up hole as you would not the have an18 differential. So what score would your allocate to such a hole.

Previously some human judgement was applied to higher handicapper scores. For example if someone, off 18 say, played 15 holes in 12 over and dinged the other three they would have been assumed something like 15 or maybe 16 over for that round as they showed that when they were playing normally for the 15 holes they were fairly capable of a decent score. Now we would give 9 over for those 3 holes, giving the player 21 over. This just seems too much compensation for probably one bad shot into the woods or water etc.

 

[rulefan]

Previously some human judgement was applied to higher handicapper scores. For example if someone, off 18 say, played 15 holes in 12 over and dinged the other three they would have been assumed something like 15 or maybe 16 over for that round as they showed that when they were playing normally for the 15 holes they were fairly capable of a decent score.

Where did you get that from?

 

[doublebogey7]

Previously some human judgement was applied to higher handicapper scores. For example if someone, off 18 say, played 15 holes in 12 over and dinged the other three they would have been assumed something like 15 or maybe 16 over for that round as they showed that when they were playing normally for the 15 holes they were fairly capable of a decent score. Now we would give 9 over for those 3 holes, giving the player 21 over. This just seems too much compensation for probably one bad shot into the woods or water etc.

Not the case at all under UHS a net double bogey was applied to all holes where the player scored more than that.

3 X 2 = 9, I must have gone to the wrong school

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Not the case at all under UHS a net double bogey was applied to all holes where the player scored more than that.

3 X 2 = 9, I must have gone to the wrong school

18 handicapper gets a shot at those dinged holes. So 3 X 3 = 9

 

[wjemather]

Previously some human judgement was applied to higher handicapper scores. For example if someone, off 18 say, played 15 holes in 12 over and dinged the other three they would have been assumed something like 15 or maybe 16 over for that round as they showed that when they were playing normally for the 15 holes they were fairly capable of a decent score. Now we would give 9 over for those 3 holes, giving the player 21 over. This just seems too much compensation for probably one bad shot into the woods or water etc.

What handicap system was this?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

What handicap system was this.

UK and Ireland.

That 18 handicapper, playing in a competition as an established player, would have had 33 stableford points in my example. That would probably have gotten him into the buffer zone so his handicap would have remained unaffected.

If he was an improving player who was establishing his handicap he would have handed that general play card to the match and handicap adjudicator who would have taken much the view I outlined.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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!

Yeah it was all for MJW, sorry for the confusion. He's moved on from me cos he can;t argue with hard facts, now it's your turn it seems