Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 30522]

You stood very little chance under the UHS and mid-high handicappers still had their day in the sun.

Under UHS there was a slight advantage for skill, that is well established and agreed. Please read the thread from the beginning to stop rehashing what's already been said

And your favourite author, Fergus, did an article on that too, please go find it,

 

[rulefan]

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

• 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.)

Where in wjem's quote above does it mention consistency. I am now a mid to high handicapper but am very consistent. I find that is true of most of my senior friends.

But you seem to be confusing an individual player with players in general.

 

[PaulMdj]

Best gross, surely? over 90% of the field could have got no where near that.

Midweek Stroke Comp, no best gross prize.

 

[PaulMdj]

That's hysterical. Fergus is a member, past club champion, and former captain at my club

He hasn't caused the issue, he's reporting on it

You need to learn to read what I put, I said see the thread, ie Read the comments, not the article.

 

[PaulMdj]

Under UHS there was a slight advantage for skill, that is well established and agreed. Please read the thread from the beginning to stop rehashing what's already been said

And your favourite author, Fergus, did an article on that too, please go find it,

Keep moaning.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

....

But you seem to be confusing an individual player with players in general.

Quite the opposite. I'm making the point that an inconsistent player, i.e. one with a higher standard deviation in their mean of 8 calculation, is more likely to be the winner of a given competition when the field size is reasonable. Of course that player is just as likely to be well off the pace but statistically one of them is likely to shoot near their best score. That best score is significantly lower than the best score of a consistent player.

We keep hearing of lower handicappers v higher handicappers and I'm simply suggesting there's more to it than that. A steady 18 handicapper who regularly plays to his handicap has no more chance than a steady scratch player.

 

[rulefan]

That best score is significantly lower than the best score of a consistent player.

I'm not a mathematician but are more erratic players more likely to exceed their best than those more consistent?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I'm not a mathematician but are more erratic players more likely to exceed their best than those more consistent?

Their best in the last 20? I don't see why that's relevant. All they need is for one of them to get near their best and that'll win.

 

[RichA]

Their best in the last 20? I don't see why that's relevant. All they need is for one of them to get near their best and that'll win.

If a player of any handicap comes close to or beats their previous best score, then surely it's completely reasonable that they should be in win a chance of winning an 18 hole competition.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

If a player of any handicap comes close to or beats their previous best score, then surely it's completely reasonable that they should be in win a chance of winning an 18 hole competition.

You would have thought so but nowadays some players have a best score 10+ better than their handicap. That's exactly my point. Consistency is now penalised.

 

[RichA]

You would have thought so but nowadays some players have a best score 10+ better than their handicap. That's exactly my point. Consistency is now penalised.

Are you talking about improvers or established golfers?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I'm not a mathematician but are more erratic players more likely to exceed their best than those more consistent?

Of course

 

[wjemather]

Am not close enough to know what the details are of how they propose to do it. I guess prizes can be distributed in any manner they wish, as they did with the categories, where they effectively modifies tge results so that the true 1st,2nd,3rd,4th werent given prizes, but reallocated them. So this year, the person who was really second didnt actually get a prize as the person who was 1st was in the same group. Thats a modification of the true overall results anyway, just by one recalculation method. Recalculating with different factor than the .95 to determine who gets prizes is just the same thing as this year but with a different recalculation method.

So two people in the same group aren't allowed to score well in the same competition?!

Manipulating results for prize purposes by applying different allowances would still be against the rules and guidance.

Sounds like your club isn't far away from deciding on the prizes winners before anyone has hit a ball.

 

[Dunesman]

I'm not a mathematician but are more erratic players more likely to exceed their best than those more consistent?

Im not a mathematician either, but I would guess so also.

If we think through the two extremes, we can imagine two 10 handicappers, one extremely consistent, the other extremely inconsistent.
A is so consistent, he always whoots 10 over. B is so inconsistent, he has scores from level par to 20 over in his 20 always.
If they just play each other, either might win depending on the play on tbat day of B. OK.
If we have a competition with 50 of A and 50 of B, the As will never win, as there will always be an inconsistent B man on a good day.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Im not a mathematician either, but I would guess so also.

I we think through the two extremes, we can imagine two 10 handicappers, one extremely consistent, the other extremely inconsistent.
A is so consistent, he always whoots 10 over. B is so inconsistent, he has scores from level par to 20 over in his 20 always.
If they just play each other, either might win depending on the play on tbat day of B. OK.
If we have a comopetition with 50 of A and 50 of B. The As will never win, as there will always be an inconsistent B man on a good day.

And that is the problem with WHS in a nutshell.

 

[Dunesman]

So two people in the same group aren't allowed to score well in the same competition?!

Manipulating results for prize purposes by applying different allowances would still be against the rules and guidance.

Sounds like your club isn't far away from deciding on the prizes winners before anyone has hit a ball.

Some misunderstanding I think. We simply had categories this year for the first time. So instead of giving prizes to the first four places of the 120 ish competitors, we were divided into four handicap ranges, and a single prize for the 'winner' in each of the four ranges. So the person of my example who wound have been 2nd last year as it was the one group, if they were in the same handicap group of the person ahead of them, has no prize this year. Nothing untoward in that at all. Its the normal way for categories I think. But an unsatisfying fix, only implemented because the single category with 1-4 prizes was clearly no longer working since WHS.
A competition giving prizes back to the 1-4 placings with a different multiplier is simply another manipulation of the prizes. I presume if they can do what they did this year, they can do the second if members agree.

 

[wjemather]

Some misunderstanding I think. We simply had categories this year for the first time. So instead of giving prizes to the first four places of the 120 ish competitors, we were divided into four handicap ranges, and a single prize for the 'winner' in each of the four ranges. So the person of my example who wound have been 2nd last year as it was the one group, if they were in the same handicap group of the person ahead of them. Nothing untoward in tbat at all I think. Its the normal way for categories I think. But an unsatisfying fix, only implemented because the single category with 1-4 prizes was clearly no longer working since WHS.

I was thrown by your use of categories and groups. Yes, divisions have long been recommended, especially for larger fields.

 

[Dunesman]

I was thrown by your use of categories and groups. Yes, divisions have long been recommended, especially for larger fields.

We would always be at least 100. Up to a peak of 150 on a nice long day in June or July. It was about 35 in each category.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

And that is the problem with WHS in a nutshell.

Another ridiculous reply , even if the 50 A's were off 1 handicap, the B's would still not win, and no system would have all the A's off even. Oh I see your system now, everyone plays off the best score they have ever had. Of course why didn't we all think of that

 

[Dunesman]

I coud add that the message from EG, if they could move themselves to explain the situation, to the consistent A seems to be "no, you will never win, but content yourself that you will have a lot of top 20s and will never be in the bottom 20".