Official WHS Survey

[clubchamp98]

Australian golf handicap system to be fine-tuned - Aussie Golfer

Aussie Golfer: Your hub for Australian golf news, reviews, tips, and golfing fun - your independent source for everything Down Under golf.

aussiegolfer.com.au

makes interesting reading.

Seems to echo what we’re seeing and hearing here.!
Especially the comments at the end!

Imagine a 20 from 40 cards jeez.
People here can’t get 3 comp cards in without moaning so they can clean up in the knockouts.!

 

[AussieKB]

Initial change from the old OZ and English system occurred in August 2010, and here it is still talked about.

 

[wjemather]

Once again, the evidence would seem to tell a different story than the one we keep hearing: GA Annual Report 2015/2016, page 24

 

[AussieKB]

so 23 January 2016 marked the two year anniversary of the commencement of changes........2014
is nowhere near 2020 you keep spruiking about.

Were you in OZ and went through these changes ?
I was going back and forth to England, for work.

GOLF Link is the Australian national computerised handicapping service provided by Golf Australia (GA). GOLF Link commenced operation in 1999 and it calculates all official Australian handicaps.

 

[Dunesman]

A couple of questions :

Regional associations like EG or the Australian one linked, I get, have access to all rounds and scores. So huge data on handicaps changes, averages, standard deviations, etc. But do they have access to actual results and winners of competitions ? How di they get this, and so be able to assess how actual comoetituons, rather than handicaps in isolation, are faring ?


Is it correct that both, it was known in advance, and has been validated since (it seems yes by anecdotal, but by data ?), that a general drift of handicaps one WHS settled, was the low handicappers were likely to lose shots, middle handicappers not really change, and higher handicappers gain shits ?
If such a stretching really happened, then surely the issue of uncompetutive low men was both predictable, and EG only has itself to blame for not modifying WHS for its members ?

 

[Dunesman]

"Over the past year there has been one topic of conversation at every golf club in Australia that has created a huge amount of talk, the new handicapping system. Generally the new system has been well received but as Peter Senior once said, “opinions are like arseholes, everyone’s got one”.


Golf Australia has been aware of the controversy and will make an announcement in May outlining a new plan for the Australian Handicap system."

The first paragraph could be transposed to England over the last 2 years. At least Australia golf acknowledged the issue and made changes. What we are sadly lacking here is the transposed second paragraph. Why ?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

so 23 January 2016 marked the two year anniversary of the commencement of changes........2014
is nowhere near 2020 you keep spruiking about.

Were you in OZ and went through these changes ?
I was going back and forth to England, for work.

GOLF Link is the Australian national computerised handicapping service provided by Golf Australia (GA). GOLF Link commenced operation in 1999 and it calculates all official Australian handicaps.

It fascinates me as to how the justification for WHS being good often focuses on the idea that higher handicappers are in the majority and their voice should be listened to. Examples of that on here and on the Aussie article.

There must be a fair system but we also must focus on what the aim of golf, for everyone, should be. That was always consistency. Consistency was, and should still be, the holy grail and one we all practice and play towards. That doesn't necessarily mean a low handicap! Accepted, lower handicappers are more likely to be consistent but that isn't universally true.

WHS currently favours inconsistent golfers. That is the issue.

 

[AussieKB]

Golf Australia has access to ALL competition results, that is why they have made changes over the years, but it still discussed by players, you will find single figure to low teens mostly don't like it, then all above mostly like it, I wonder why.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Golf Australia has access to ALL competition results, that is why they have made changes over the years, but it still discussed by players, you will find single figure to low teens mostly don't like it, then all above mostly like it, I wonder why.

I was hoping that enough of our golfing lives had been spoiled by WHS but seems like the Aussies have been suffering for longer.

Have there been any breakaways? E.g. whole golf clubs that have gone their own way or groups of players that have created their own competitions?

 

[wjemather]

As has been said many times, it is not particularly useful to focus only on the winners and their scores when assessing equity/fairness. There is an balance to be decided upon for any handicap system, as identified in the above linked report (#1,023), between winning outright and winning prizes in general (i.e. placing).

• Over the course of a year for men the current GA Handicap System produces a slight bias towards players with single figure handicaps when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to finish as a placegetter in a competition. The reverse is true when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to win the competition – in this case the bias is slightly towards players with high handicaps. (Note: If GA was to fine-tune the handicap system to further enhance the chances of male single-figure players winning competitions, a direct side effect would be to create a severe bias towards the chance of a single-figure player to finish as a placegetter in a competition.)

 

[Deleted member 36483]

As has been said many times, it is not particularly useful to focus only on the winners and their scores when assessing equity/fairness. There is an balance to be decided upon for any handicap system, as identified in the above linked report (#1,023), between winning outright and winning prizes in general (i.e. placing).

• Over the course of a year for men the current GA Handicap System produces a slight bias towards players with single figure handicaps when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to finish as a placegetter in a competition. The reverse is true when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to win the competition – in this case the bias is slightly towards players with high handicaps. (Note: If GA was to fine-tune the handicap system to further enhance the chances of male single-figure players winning competitions, a direct side effect would be to create a severe bias towards the chance of a single-figure player to finish as a placegetter in a competition.)

In other words the consistent golfers generally play to their handicaps but are usually beaten by an inconsistent player.

 

[Slab]

A 'known' bandit, a newish player or just a player with his day in the sun?

Whether off 5, 12 or (the limit) of 24, there's no practical way to shoot 12 under handicap if your handicap is accurately indicative of current form
And it was very sunny so we all had our day in the sun

I even got cut 0.1 from my 34 points (tough course)

 

[Dunesman]

As has been said many times, it is not particularly useful to focus only on the winners and their scores when assessing equity/fairness. There is an balance to be decided upon for any handicap system, as identified in the above linked report (#1,023), between winning outright and winning prizes in general (i.e. placing).

• Over the course of a year for men the current GA Handicap System produces a slight bias towards players with single figure handicaps when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to finish as a placegetter in a competition. The reverse is true when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to win the competition – in this case the bias is slightly towards players with high handicaps. (Note: If GA was to fine-tune the handicap system to further enhance the chances of male single-figure players winning competitions, a direct side effect would be to create a severe bias towards the chance of a single-figure player to finish as a placegetter in a competition.)

Thats very interesting thanks, and confirms the feeling of injustice here has some grounds.

1. Kudos to Golf Aus for their openness and honesty in recognising the system is flawed. Whatever the flaw, it is better than the - all fine, nothing to see here, no comment, message we are given in England.

2. I paraphrase GA slightly : sorry low men, yes, you are less likely to win, and high handicaps are more likely to. You will however have more high table finishes.

3. The Aus sutuation has a multiplier of 0.93, while we are 0.95. So we are even more askew than the acknowledged weakness in Aus.

4. With more contending but not winning results, low men here are justifued in their impression that they are close, but cannot win. The higher frequency of near misses actually exacerbating thus feeling rather than bein any consolation.

5. Aus golf does somewhat c9ntraduct itself. It claims the prizing of consistency. Yet if I paraphrase them again they are saying : sorry low men, due to your very consistency, and an imperfect system that we cannot level to be fair in both high placings and win chances, we are going to penalise you by opting to disadvantage your chances of winning, rather than your chances of high placings.

 

[wjemather]

In other words the consistent golfers generally play to their handicaps but are usually beaten by an inconsistent player.

No. I assume you are equating low handicaps with consistency and high handicaps with inconsistency, and therefore making a different point to that made in the report.

 

[AussieKB]

Whether off 5, 12 or (the limit) of 24, there's no practical way to shoot 12 under handicap if your handicap is accurately indicative of current form
And it was very sunny so we all had our day in the sun

I even got cut 0.1 from my 34 points (tough course)

I was hoping that enough of our golfing lives had been spoiled by WHS but seems like the Aussies have been suffering for longer.

Have there been any breakaways? E.g. whole golf clubs that have gone their own way or groups of players that have created their own competitions?

No breakaways, it is impossible as Golf Australia rules absolute,
but on my trip to Thailand each year we have been playing under my handicap system,
95% approve of it, this year out of 24 only one person queried it, and at the end of the
trip they benefited most.

My system would never work as a whole, but is great for groups on holiday.

 

[Dunesman]

As has been said many times, it is not particularly useful to focus only on the winners and their scores when assessing equity/fairness. There is an balance to be decided upon for any handicap system, as identified in the above linked report (#1,023), between winning outright and winning prizes in general (i.e. placing).

This seems the disconnect. The average golfer IS expecting fairness to be judged according to win probability. That is why we compete in a handicap system.
Who is it that has said this many times ? England Golf ? Then they are not listening to their members, and need to correct that point.

 

[wjemather]

Thats very interesting thanks, and confirms the feeling of injustice here has some grounds.

1. Kudos to Golf Aus for their openness and honesty in recognising the system is flawed. Whatever the flaw, it is better than the - all fine, nothing to see here, no comment, message we are given in England.

2. I paraphrase GA slightly : sorry low men, yes, you are less likely to win, and high handicaps are more likely to. You will however have more high table finishes.

3. The Aus sutuation has a multiplier of 0.93, while we are 0.95. So we are even more askew than the acknowledged weakness in Aus.

4. With more contending but not winning results, low men here are justifued in their impression that they are close, but cannot win. The higher frequency of near misses actually exacerbating thus feeling rather than bein any consolation.

5. Aus golf does somewhat c9ntraduct itself. It claims the prizing of consistency. Yet if I paraphrase them again they are saying : sorry low men, due to your very consistency, and an imperfect system that we cannot level to be fair in both high placings and win chances, we are going to penalise you by opting to disadvantage your chances of winning, rather than your chances of high placings.

It shows the opposite too, if you believe it shouldn't be all about winning and that higher handicappers shouldn't be severely disadvantaged in their quest for a high placing.

This seems the disconnect. The average golfer IS expecting fairness to be judged according to win probability. That is why we compete in a handicap system.
Who is it that has said this many times ? England Golf ? Then they are not listening to their members, and need to correct that point.

From Appendix A: "...recommended handicap allowances... are designed to give all players a similar chance of finishing in the top 10% when playing well..."; and from GB&I guidance: "The 95% allowance is needed to provide equity for singles stroke play, as this must also take into account the probability of a steady golfer gaining a leader board position."

 

[Deleted member 36483]

No. I assume you are equating low handicaps with consistency and high handicaps with inconsistency, and therefore making a different point to that made in the report.

You're very difficult to debate with because you don't appear to read stuff. I really can't be bothered to repeat it but...

It fascinates me as to how the justification for WHS being good often focuses on the idea that higher handicappers are in the majority and their voice should be listened to. Examples of that on here and on the Aussie article.

There must be a fair system but we also must focus on what the aim of golf, for everyone, should be. That was always consistency. Consistency was, and should still be, the holy grail and one we all practice and play towards. That doesn't necessarily mean a low handicap! Accepted, lower handicappers are more likely to be consistent but that isn't universally true.

WHS currently favours inconsistent golfers. That is the issue.

Please try and read to the end.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Talking to another random golfer today. A Canadian this time. I mentioned WHS and his reaction was that he disliked it and so does all his mates. However his view was that everyone is now too low because of it. That reinforces the view that the North Americans just don't have the same approach to their golf as we do here. I'm getting from that that they are not as competition oriented as Ireland and rest of UK and definitely Australia according to that article.

So the purpose of a handicap is not the same across the world? If so then that's WHS's Achilles heel.

 

[wjemather]

You're very difficult to debate with because you don't appear to read stuff. I really can't be bothered to repeat it but...

Please try and read to the end.

Happy to confirm that I didn't something read something that wasn't in (or even hinted at in) the post I replied to.

The aim of golf has always been to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible (x18). Consistency may be a means to that end, but it isn't the goal. And yes, it is a different issue to the one being highlighted in the quote from the report.