Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 36483]

Over to you R&A. Tell us what's next in this grand plan to save the sport that didn't need saving, at least here in Ireland.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

There's a belief that people should have an intelligence test before being allowed to have kids, I think that that same test should be taken before being allowed to post on a Football or Golf forum.

Pot, kettle

 

[Deleted member 30522]

There's a belief that people should have an intelligence test before being allowed to have kids, I think that that same test should be taken before being allowed to post on a Football or Golf forum.

Damn right, people with no ability to think critically. Wonder who eh?

 

[moogie]

Thread is a head shaker
Round and and round in circles

Most my mates I play with don't give 2 hoots about any handicap system we have to endure
Just turn up
Play golf, put score in, system takes care of the rest, hcap is what it is.

Tends to be 2 camps
Those that put card in every round they play, or the other, just put cards in when in club comps.

I've not encountered anybody that has views like those displayed on here

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Is that what he’s describing as statistics??

An entire year's results, yeah that's pretty much statistics. Once again though MJWeather is refusing to actually go though them, instead having allowed a few pages and days to go past, he's now poo-pooing them without quoting a single one, because people are lazy and they'll think it's a push, when he's just making noises to flood out statistics

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I don’t care if they reflect mine. I don’t mind WHS. I didn’t mind the old system either.

But I’m not the one screaming from the rooftops that WHS is bad and we should go back to how things were.

WHS probably isn’t perfect. But neither are any golfers. So it takes the middle ground.

There are issues surrounding inputting of scores. There are easily overcome.
They are not directly related to the WHS.

There are issues of people comparing handicaps from two different systems. Clearly not as easy to overcome.

I’m still waiting for answers to my question on the other discussion. Maybe you’d like to answer them.

How does any system accuracy reflect potential? [1]

How do you define potential? [also 1]

How would you account for the almost infinite possible ways a person can put together a handicap? [2]

How long should counting scores last? [3]

How many scores should count? [4]

How do you account for the difference in how seriously people take their golf? For example your buddy @clubchamp98 takes it very seriously, he’s invested in coaching and equipment to maximise his potential. I presume he takes an active interest in S&C, mobility and nutrition. Probably gets to the club early when competing for the weekly stableford to go through his stretching routine and a proper warm up. [5]

Whereas. I could be someone who rocks up on the first tee with a minute to spare, with a warm up that consists of a practice swing and a coffee. But still shoots lower scores with a set of second hand clubs cobbled together off eBay. I could also be that person but I shoot higher scores. [6]

How would you account for the improving player? [7]

Excellent series of questions
[1] You're thinking a system should be based on guesswork? Do you mean ability here? A system should have handicaps pretty close to someone's optimum play, and should only recede from that over a long time, extreme one-offs shouldn't weigh that highly. UHS did this.

[2] I have no idea what you're trying to say here so I won't guess

[3] Scores should be on your record forever, like UHS

[4] Depends on the system, if you're going to stick with WHS, then no more than 5 imo, otherwise high variance scores rather than someone's possible ability start to weigh handicap too highly

[5] Don't skew a system against them, so that folks who just turn up for fun have an advantage

[6] Exactly, so don't build in a bonus for mediocrity

[7] His handicap will be cut as he improves

Hope that helps?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Guy shot 27 pts on the back nine today on my track. Serious course and serious competition too. He's been put in the stocks. I'm headed down there shortly.

 

[C7usk]

Damn right, people with no ability to think critically. Wonder who eh?

.?

 

[clubchamp98]

Can you clarify the actual handicaps you are on about?

16/28 cappers the very high ones are not the problem.
The silly scores come from experienced golfers who now have extra shots without their game actually changing.

 

[Dunesman]

Annual reviews were for people who'd grown old or had developed a physical issue.

Those who needed to go up because they were playing badly were not considered. The thought was, and still is amongst many, that these guys needed to practice and/or get a lesson. If you need more than 1 shot per hole you are probably in need of a lesson anyway. Maybe the player doesn't know the correct technique for a bunker shot? If he does know the right technique for the shot that's hurting him then practice. Giving more shots isn't going to cure the illness. For example if it's the yips, giving him more shots can actually make things worse.

The game is meant to test us.

This would not have been the case in any UK club operating the Congu system.
Under that, it was quite the contrary to this scenario you had in Australia.
Here, handicaps were increased precisely and only because you were playing badly, and your scores were consistently out of range for your handicap. And equally, it was explicit that upward revisions were not to be applied due reasons such as injury, age, or health.
Considerations such as needing to practice or get a lesson were not a consideration in any way either, and I cannot quite follow how your system worked with such arbitrary judgements being part of the process.
The aim of a handicap is to reflect how someone is playing with or without yips, with or without being able to play out of a sand trap.

 

[clubchamp98]

I don’t care if they reflect mine. I don’t mind WHS. I didn’t mind the old system either.

But I’m not the one screaming from the rooftops that WHS is bad and we should go back to how things were.

WHS probably isn’t perfect. But neither are any golfers. So it takes the middle ground.

There are issues surrounding inputting of scores. There are easily overcome.
They are not directly related to the WHS.

There are issues of people comparing handicaps from two different systems. Clearly not as easy to overcome.

I’m still waiting for answers to my question on the other discussion. Maybe you’d like to answer them.

How does any system accuracy reflect potential?

How do you define potential?

How would you account for the almost infinite possible ways a person can put together a handicap?

How long should counting scores last?

How many scores should count?

How do you account for the difference in how seriously people take their golf? For example your buddy @clubchamp98 takes it very seriously, he’s invested in coaching and equipment to maximise his potential. I presume he takes an active interest in S&C, mobility and nutrition. Probably gets to the club early when competing for the weekly stableford to go through his stretching routine and a proper warm up.

Whereas. I could be someone who rocks up on the first tee with a minute to spare, with a warm up that consists of a practice swing and a coffee. But still shoots lower scores with a set of second hand clubs cobbled together off eBay. I could also be that person but I shoot higher scores.

How would you account for the improving player?

I think you are the one screaming from the rooftops.
We’re having a disscusion your the one screaming and demanding answers.

Low HI
As above
Make it comp cards only
That depends on the system they use
Four.

I think your description of me ,someone you have never met is quite correct apart from the nutrition.
I do eat some crap.
I stretch and warm up so my 67 yr old body dosnt get injured

You havnt told us which one you are.

Make sure he’s cut accordingly.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

This would not have been the case in any UK club operating the Congu system.
Under that, it was quite the contrary to this scenario you had in Australia.
Here, handicaps were increased precisely and only because you were playing badly, and your scores were consistently out of range for your handicap. And equally, it was explicit that upward revisions were not to be applied due reasons such as injury, age, or health.
Considerations such as needing to practice or get a lesson were not a consideration in any way either, and I cannot quite follow how your system worked with such arbitrary judgements being part of the process.
The aim of a handicap is to reflect how someone is playing with or without yips, with or without being able to play out of a sand trap.

Not in Australia. I was a member in England for 15 years and have always been a member in Ireland. One club for 47 years. People don't get shots back for playing badly. At least I've never seen it in my time.

The only people I can recall getting shots back were either in their 70s or one chap who had an accident and had to start playing left handed as a result.

 

[Dunesman]

16/28 cappers the very high ones are not the problem.
The silly scores come from experienced golfers who now have extra shots without their game actually changing.

This is also my observation, and is tye flaw in WHS application in a culture of regular competitions of 100+ golfers across the full range of handicaps.

The old method did tend to fix ones handicap on the low side, reducing the probability of good score. WHS enables the index to rise quickly and significantly.

It is indisputable that a handicap can now rise quickly by 3 shots, where previously it was limited to one. And not quite as quickly it can rise by 5 compared to still 1 previously.
For the 20 handicapper, with the variability of scores we know we can have, our handicaps can rise by two or 3 shots in as little as a week or two. Not every time we have a few bad rounds. But there are so many of us, a significant proportion of a given competituon are probably somewhere on the upper range of that cycle. But our form hasnt changed ! For enough, it is not reflecting a deterioration of our golf. We are tye same golfer. And have gained a couple of shots, score well, add in the extra mistaken increase WHS gave us wheather we like it or not, and our 'fair' 41 points is now 44. And we are handicap building bandits.

And yes, the low men cannot compete with the one of my cohort will do that on a given day. The single figure man is both steadier, so less volatile to accumulate those unneeded shots. And more protective of his hc status, so (not all, sure!) less likely to play if not on form, the conditions are bad, or the course is tough or unknown.

This all stems from WHS not being atune to the strong intra club competition culture that is traditional here and still widespread. Reducing the 0.95 to nibble a shot or two from the 15-25 range could repair the damage. Another solution, deviating of course from the goal of a single global WHS, but then that has clearly already failed, would be to bring the soft cap back to 1, and the hard cap to 2 for example.

Our country authorities need to adapt WHS to fit with rollups and Stableford competitions that is our golfing heritage, not the more casual one off matches that is the more American norm, before our competition culture is lost irretrievably.

 

[Dunesman]

Not in Australia. I was a member in England for 15 years and have always been a member in Ireland. One club for 47 years. People don't get shots back for playing badly. At least I've never seen it in my time.

Sorry, I thought you were in Aus.
The comments still apply though. Congu applied in Ireland was the same as the England, so what you describe cannot possibly have been the case if your club was running its affairs correctly. Playing badly relative to your handicap was precisely, and the only way, handicaps were increased under that system.

 

[clubchamp98]

This is also my observation, and is tye flaw in WHS application in a culture of regular competitions of 100+ golfers across the full range of handicaps.

The old method did tend to fix ones handicap on the low side, reducing the probability of good score. WHS enables the index to rise quickly and significantly.

It is indisputable that a handicap can now rise quickly by 3 shots, where previously it was limited to one. And not quite as quickly it can rise by 5 compared to still 1 previously.
For the 20 handicapper, with the variability of scores we know we can have, our handicaps can rise by two or 3 shots in as little as a week or two. Not every time we have a few bad rounds. But there are so many of us, a significant proportion of a given competituon are probably somewhere on the upper range of that cycle. But our form hasnt changed ! For enough, it is not reflecting a deterioration of our golf. We are tye same golfer. And have gained a couple of shots, score well, add in the extra mistaken increase WHS gave us wheather we like it or not, and our 'fair' 41 points is now 44. And we are handicap building bandits.

And yes, the low men cannot compete with the one of my cohort will do that on a given day. The single figure man is both steadier, so less volatile to accumulate those unneeded shots. And more protective of his hc status, some (not all, sure!) less likely to play if not on form, the conditions are bad, or the course is tough or unknown.

This all stems from WHS not being atune to the strong intra club competition culture that is traditional here and still widespread. Reducing the 0.95 to nibble a shot or two from the 15-25 range could repair the damage. Another solution, deviating of course from the goal of a single global WHS, but then that has clearly already failed, would be to bring the soft cap back to 1, and the hard cap to 2 for example.

Our country authorities need to adapt WHS to fit with rollups and Stableford competitions that is our golfing heritage, not the more casual one off matches that is the more American norm, before our competition culture is lost irretrievably.

Someone will be along soon to tell you your completely wrong
Very well put.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Sorry, I thought you were in Aus.
The comments still apply though. Congu applied in Ireland was the same as the England, so what you describe cannot possibly have been the case if your club was running its affairs correctly. Playing badly relative to your handicap was precisely, and the only way, handicaps were increased under that system.

Of course playing badly gave you regular upward increments of 0.1. Is that what you mean? I'm talking about the club deciding you need extra shots.

 

[clubchamp98]

Of course playing badly gave you regular upward increments of 0.1. Is that what you mean? I'm talking about the club deciding you need extra shots.

Didn’t seven point ones trigger a review ?

Sure I heard that long time ago.

 

[nickjdavis]

Didn’t seven point ones trigger a review ?

Sure I heard that long time ago.

Triggered a 1 shot exceptional score increase.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Didn’t seven point ones trigger a review ?

Sure I heard that long time ago.

Possibly, not heard that. Nevertheless it wasn't normal to hand out handicap increases without a very good reason.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Triggered a 1 shot exceptional score increase.

It didn’t trigger it automatically- it triggered a recommendation to increase by a shot