Official WHS Survey

[AussieKB]

Was there no cap at all originally, and did people rise 5 shots in half a dozen rounds in a fortnight ? Interesting that you are 93%. Was it previously 95% or 100% ?

100% when first introduced, and all you had to do was put in 20 cards and have a total new handicap, and here in OZ we play at least 3 comp rounds a week, but in theory you could manipulate any handicap you wanted.

A scratch marker could go to 20 or above.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Stop playing for prizes/money. If I play in a Medal, I just assume I'm not going to win and would have to have a heck of round to even get in the money. My goal is just to play as well as possible and then look later to see how I did against all the other players. I don't like playing for money at any time, but it's just what you have to do here. Get rid of the prizes/money....would there still be as much of an issue with people worrying about other players?

I'd be more than happy just to have a number of different league tables for things like Medals.

For the love of money is the root of all evil..

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Just checked today's results and 46 points won, handicap 23, so as you can see after 4 years it has not got any better for a single figure golfer.

Context needed
Whats this players record - I know used to a 12 handicap now playing off 23
How easy was the course set up - I know off the tips , pins just over bunkers

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Context needed
Whats this players record - I know used to a 12 handicap now playing off 23
How easy was the course set up - I know off the tips , pins just over bunkers

More detail isn't that important, 46 points is a ridiculous score. The possibility that it could be justified under WHS doesn't make things better, in fact worse.

We get caught up in arguing about particular details on here but the general trend is obvious enough.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

100% when first introduced, and all you had to do was put in 20 cards and have a total new handicap, and here in OZ we play at least 3 comp rounds a week, but in theory you could manipulate any handicap you wanted.

A scratch marker could go to 20 or above.

I had a conversation with a friend when WHS was imposed on us here in Ireland. I'd spent some time understanding it. He hadn't. I predicted that it would cause real issues with our competitive golf in the club. He said I was talking nonsense and told me it just needed a while to bed in. His rationale was that it was working fine elsewhere. Fair play to him as that's the impression we all had been given.

Several years on and he's no longer of that opinion.

We were sold a pup.

 

[AussieKB]

Context needed
Whats this players record - I know used to a 12 handicap now playing off 23
How easy was the course set up - I know off the tips , pins just over bunkers

Course setup was normal, just looked at his scores highest score 34 points, next 30 points in his last 10 rounds.

I think this is a major problem with this System, the mid to high handicappers put in a round like this then nothing for another 10 or so rounds, then bingo out they come with this kind of score.

The low markers are mostly consistent, no chance of shooting anything in the mid 40's.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

T

Course setup was normal, just looked at his scores highest score 34 points, next 30 points in his last 10 rounds.

I think this is a major problem with this System, the mid to high handicappers put in a round like this then nothing for another 10 or so rounds, then bingo out they come with this kind of score.

The low markers are mostly consistent, no chance of shooting anything in the mid 40's.

Unless you reduce all 23 handicappers to 13 handicap , then this will happen to one of them every now and again
No system can predict when and who is going to have a blinding round

 

[Deleted member 36483]

T

Unless you reduce all 23 handicappers to 13 handicap , then this will happen to one of them every now and again
No system can predict when and who is going to have a blinding round

I don't think that is true.

There are 23 handicappers who are simply not capable of 13 over. Their spread of scores is fairly narrow, they are consistent. Inconsistent players are the problem in that a simple average of a wide range will mean a large standard deviation for those players. Practice narrows the spread but that's for mugs now. Used to be the holy grail, consistency.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

More detail isn't that important, 46 points is a ridiculous score. The possibility that it could be justified under WHS doesn't make things better, in fact worse.

We get caught up in arguing about particular details on here but the general trend is obvious enough.

This comment is why most of your arguments or posts seem like just a rant against a system you don't like, there's no substance or reasoning behind them

The detail is important. Of course 46 points is a fantastic score, that could be down to a few things

1) One of those, once in a lifetime score (Even pro's have been known to score 59's or even better on 7000+ courses)
2) Course set up was a shortened course and there were loads of low to mid 40 scores
3) This guy is cheating his handicap and those who know him haven't realised he shoots low 80's every few weeks and 105's when no one is looking

Please give us your fail proof system that could work, none of this the good old days were better, I remember 46 points scores from years back even a 48 and I should know I had a 47 that day.

 

[IanM]

Categories are not a fix. They are an admission that the system doesnt function as a whole.

I first joined a golf club in 1990.
That club, and every one I joined subsequently, has run competitions in categories.

It's hardly a new thing.

 

[Dunesman]

Please give us your fail proof system that could work, none of this the good old days were better, I remember 46 points scores from years back even a 48 and I should know I had a 47 that day.

The clever WHS mathematicians can surely devise the detail, and I am sure it is possible within the general architecture of WHS : restore the key design element that was lost for us in the transition to WHS, namely, that handicaps fall faster than they rise. Ideally with a 'slope' factor that was also lost, that reductions happened faster for higher handicaps than for low handicaps.
This method was devised for a purpose, and served us for 40 years. Yet it was effectively, completely amputated with WHS (yes, I know, soft cap, hard cap, but they are too late, and too little to be of real use).

The 46 always happened, but such examples, and that they can be rebuffed as always having happened anyway, and being isolated cases, are just noise, and distract from the real issue : The ease, speed, and with no element of cheating or handicap manipulation, but just through normal play, that an 18 can have 2 or 3 more shots in a competition compared to just a week earlier. This us what prompts the examples and claims along the lines "I would have had to shoot a course eecord just to finish second ! Whats the point?". It isnt the isolated really exceptional score that is robbing the low man of his win, it is that there are always enough golfers in the middle to upper range with an extea, very temporarily, 2 or 3 shots, to ensure the low man is beaten by a shot or two.

If we had stuck to only competition cards counting for handicap, the issue mightnt have been as evident or extreme. But the put-all-your-card-in emphasis from officialdom, has been the fuel on the fire driving sawtooth profile handicaps. Fewer cards as of old, would have had a dampening effect.

WHS was just a perfect storm, that was not fit for purpose for the British amateur golf club tradition.

 

[Dunesman]

I first joined a golf club in 1990.
That club, and every one I joined subsequently, has run competitions in categories.

It's hardly a new thing.

I dont doubt, and indeed a club I was i 20 years ago had them. But that clubs who never had them, have had to, and are being advised to, introduce them, is evidence of the problem.
The are not a solve all. They are only relevant or practical for some competitions, and a non solution for others. We are not going to mint 3 more cups to have 4 "winners" of a trophy that has had a single winner for over a century.

 

[IanM]

I think I said previously, the serious stuff is scratch. No need to buy more cups. Everyone should know the difference.

If I'm a novice/bad rugby player, I don't expect to get picked for the 1st XV.

 

[wjemather]

Was there no cap at all originally, and did people rise 5 shots in half a dozen rounds in a fortnight ? Interesting that you are 93%. Was it previously 95% or 100% ?

FYI, @AussieKB is adamant that the old pre-2020 GA system (as described in #976, which was an adaptation of the old USGA system) was WHS.

 

[Voyager EMH]

2013 Auzzie system

Loading…

archive.golf.org.au

Summary of some points

Score Differential = Gross Score - Scratch Rating
No mention of Slope Rating

Best 8 from 20.
93%
Maximum men's handicap 36.4
Maximum Score Differential of 40 for men
5 strokes increase limit

Looks a lot, rather than a bit, like WHS.
Certainly more like WHS than UK pre-WHS

 

[nickjdavis]

100% when first introduced, and all you had to do was put in 20 cards and have a total new handicap, and here in OZ we play at least 3 comp rounds a week, but in theory you could manipulate any handicap you wanted.

A scratch marker could go to 20 or above.

So when WHS was first implemented your local union did not use the Soft/Hard cap system?

That's a failing of the Union, not the WHS.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

So when WHS was first implemented your local union did not use the Soft/Hard cap system?

That's a failing of the Union, not the WHS.

As I understood it, Australia was an early adopter and went through 6 iterations before getting to what we know as WHS.

@AussieKB will clarify hopefully

 

[Dunesman]

I see average handicaps in the USA are 2-3 shots lower than the average in England, so maybe that even things out and makes WHS work there. We dont know how evenly distributed the difference is across handicap ranges of course but if it were more at the upoer end, and less at the lower end, rather than simply 3 shots for all golfers then 95% working there could mean 85% or something is needed here. Why we have a higher average though isnt clear, and without knowing that its hard to draw a conclusion. Nevertheless, a 2-3 shot error seems to be what we are dealing with, so the USA-England being in the same range is interesting.

 

[Dunesman]

So when WHS was first implemented your local union did not use the Soft/Hard cap system?

That's a failing of the Union, not the WHS.

Rather than blame or failings, the interesting thing is that handicaps were not sufficiently controlled without a cap. A cap presumably not foreseen as needed in the devising of the system. Showing something in the model is lacking, and that there is an element of experimental itteration going on rather than a full understanding of the dynamic. This would be in line with my own (unsubstantiated!) feeling that the cap is the hole below the waterline that is sinking an otherwise good vessel and that even the soft 3 and 5 are not tight enough. Patch that specific hole and all is good again.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I see average handicaps in the USA are 2-3 shirs lower than the average in England, so maybe that even things out and makes WHS work there. We dont know how evenly distributed the difference is across handicap ranges of course but if it were more at the upoer end, and less at the lower end, rather than simply 3 shots for all golfers then 95% working there could mean 85% or something is needed here. Why we have a higher average though isnt clear, and without knowing that its hard to draw a conclusion. Nevertheless, a 2-3 shot error seems to be what we are dealing with, so the USA-England being in the same range is interesting.

So many potential reasons for that but I'll just mention one.

I have played with quite a few low handicap Americans. With the exception of one of them they have been not very good, at least not what you'd expect based on handicap. However most of them don't take their scoring round as seriously as we would. They have a habit of scoring what they should have scored on each hole rather than what they actually scored. Not cheating as they obviously don't think it matters too much. So, as a result, not too many net double bogeys skewing things.