Official WHS Survey

[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!

That's what he does

 

[rulefan]

UK and Ireland.

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.

Supplementary Scores
21.8 Stroke Play returns are subject to Stableford/Nett Double Bogey Adjustment in compliance with Clause 19.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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.

Definetly seen this as well at my home club, away club not so affected as the tee sheet normally fills anyway, but far less low handicappers of the old cat 1 playing than there were

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Supplementary Scores
21.8 Stroke Play returns are subject to Stableford/Nett Double Bogey Adjustment in compliance with Clause 19.

Now I see why you call yourself that.

Very good but general play cards were carefully managed, certainly at my clubs, in the past. Someone using them to get down to play in scratch opens wasn't going to happen. Someone using them to get their handicap up also wasn't happening. Using them to establish a handicap or after an injury could and would happen and judgement was applied.

 

[wjemather]

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.

No, that isn't what happened at all. The old system used the same Stableford/nett double bogey adjustments for both competition and supplementary scores. There was no doctoring of scores by the handicap committee.

Now I see why you call yourself that.

Very good but general play cards were carefully managed, certainly at my clubs, in the past. Someone using them to get down to play in scratch opens wasn't going to happen. Someone using them to get their handicap up also wasn't happening. Using them to establish a handicap or after an injury could and would happen and judgement was applied.

Handicap committees have strict rules to follow, even those that give the impression that they can do whatever they want.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

No, that isn't what happened at all. The old system used the same Stableford/nett double bogey adjustments for both competition and supplementary scores. There was no doctoring of scores by the handicap committee.


Handicap committees have strict rules to follow, even those that give the impression that they can do whatever they want.

Doctoring? Handicap committees use their judgement in my experience. That's their job.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree on that aspect of my post.

The 18 handicapper guy in my example got 33 points and would have buffer zoned in the old system. Now he gets a 21 over for that round. That's a significant difference introduced by WHS.

 

[Golfloveruk]

Doctoring? Handicap committees use their judgement in my experience. That's their job.

Anyway, let's agree to disagree on that aspect of my post.

The 18 handicapper guy in my example got 33 points and would have buffer zoned in the old system. Now he gets a 21 over for that round. That's a significant difference introduced by WHS.

Two different systems. Stop comparing.

The old one is gone, no amount of making up hypothetical scenarios and presenting your opinions as gospel will bring it back!!

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Two different systems. Stop comparing.

The old one is gone, no amount of making up hypothetical scenarios and presenting your opinions gospel as will bring it back!!

I'm trying to explain why WHS needs looking at. My examples are over simple but nevertheless I think they highlight the trend that creates artificially high handicaps for inconsistent players. Net double bogey needs looking at for WHS to be credible amongst a group of golfers that I would belong to. I accept that other groups of golfers don't see, or care for, the problems but we really could do with a system that doesn't polarised views.

We didn't have this polarised split before WHS.

 

[wjemather]

The 18 handicapper guy in my example got 33 points and would have buffer zoned in the old system. Now he gets a 21 over for that round. That's a significant difference introduced by WHS.

With WHS, 33 points can be a counting score resulting in a lower HI.

 

[abjectplop]

With WHS, 33 points can be a counting score resulting in a lower HI.

33 points under the old system could have been a cut, a buffer, or a 0.1. Depends entirely on what the SSS/CSS was.

 

[wjemather]

33 points under the old system could have been a cut, a buffer, or a 0.1. Depends entirely on what the SSS/CSS was.

Comparing like for like, (we have to use) 36 points = playing to handicap, so 33 would never be a reduction under the old system.

(I'm assuming) the contention was that the higher differential means a higher HI, but that isn't how the system works.

 

[abjectplop]

Comparing like for like, 36 points = playing to handicap, so 33 would never be a reduction under the old system.

36 points wasn't playing to handicap under the CONGU UHS system.

And yes, 33 points could be a reduction.

 

[wjemather]

36 points wasn't playing to handicap under the CONGU UHS system.

SSS=CSS=Par is assumed for illustrative purposes. Using anything else would make any comparison invalid.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

With WHS, 33 points can be a counting score resulting in a lower HI.

In the example he gets 21. Yes, that could be a counting score but if he does that every time, for the sake of argument, he ends up off 21. He's now getting 2 shots at 3 holes and if his 3 dings aren't at those holes he's getting more than 33 points now.

This system offers comfort, and reward for mediocrity, instead of an incentive to fix the blocked tee shots, or whatever it is that, is causing his dings.

He's also a dangerous matchplayer and a great partner in 4BBB. Often he knows himself that his handicap is higher than it should be which, to some people, is embarrassing.

 

[Slab]

In the example he gets 21. Yes, that could be a counting score but if he does that every time, for the sake of argument, he ends up off 21. He's now getting 2 shots at 3 holes and if his 3 dings aren't at those holes he's getting more than 33 points now.

This system offers comfort, and reward for mediocrity, instead of an incentive to fix the blocked tee shots, or whatever it is that, is causing his dings.

He's also a dangerous matchplayer and a great partner in 4BBB. Often he knows himself that his handicap is higher than it should be which, to some people, is embarrassing.

Isn’t this player turning into quite a specific set of circumstances/parameters
If an 18 handicap is playing 15 holes at 12 over is he really gonna consistently finish blob,blob,blob, isn’t he just as likely to finish par,par,par or par bogey par etc etc .. and get a cut

 

[Orikoru]

Isn’t this player turning into quite a specific set of circumstances/parameters
If an 18 handicap is playing 15 holes at 12 over is he really gonna consistently finish blob,blob,blob, isn’t he just as likely to finish par,par,par or par bogey par etc etc .. and get a cut

Hello and welcome to my golf game.

 

[Golfloveruk]

In the example he gets 21. Yes, that could be a counting score but if he does that every time, for the sake of argument, he ends up off 21. He's now getting 2 shots at 3 holes and if his 3 dings aren't at those holes he's getting more than 33 points now.

This system offers comfort, and reward for mediocrity, instead of an incentive to fix the blocked tee shots, or whatever it is that, is causing his dings.

He's also a dangerous matchplayer and a great partner in 4BBB. Often he knows himself that his handicap is higher than it should be which, to some people, is embarrassing.

So a bandit then?

Or not as good as he thinks. If he plays to 21 every time he’s clearly not a mid teens player. Unless he’s managing his handicap?? Which has gone on since the dawn of the handicaps.

 

[Golfloveruk]

Isn’t this player turning into quite a specific set of circumstances/parameters

Yes. Both the Ian and Buddha chap are using very very specific examples to prove a rule.

There will always be edge cases. But one’s own experience does not mean it’s the same across the board. Which I think these two fellows assume.

 

[Dunesman]

This system offers comfort, and reward for mediocrity, instead of an incentive to fix the blocked tee shots, or whatever it is that, is causing his dings.

I dont follow what you mean here. A handicap system has the role of detecting and reflecting in the handicap any 'dings' or blocked shots or whatever. WHS does that. That is not a comfort or reward. It has no role in offering any incentive to fix these mistakes. An index is independent of any judgement on mediocrity or otherwise. A scratch player is a mediocre player compared to Rory MacIlroy. But that doesnt matter. He is still a scratch player.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I dont follow what you mean here. A handicap system has the role of detecting and reflecting in the handicap any 'dings' or blocked shots or whatever. WHS does that. That is not a comfort or reward. It has no role in offering any incentive to fix these mistakes. An index is independent of any judgement on mediocrity or otherwise. A scratch player is a mediocre player compared to Rory MacIlroy. But that doesnt matter. He is still a scratch player.

A handicap system's job is to create an even playing field for fair competition. I am trying to explain why WHS fails to do that. Some people get it straight away and they are often golfers with the years of experience. Some people regard those people as outdated thinkers and so be it. Eventually those outdated thinkers will find a way to enjoy competition again outside WHS, unless those running WHS listen.