Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 30522]

Why do you insist on denying indisputable facts?
The process is summarised here: https://www.randa.org/roh/interpretations/rule-5#5_6_1

Apologies, I'd missed this beuaty at the time



So...
1. What is "the expected score"? Nobody knows because they won't tell us
2. "the expected..blah blah blah". What is this, they won't tell us?
3. See note 1
4. See note 1
5. How?
6. What calculations? None are shown. With CSS we could work it out manually
7. Well, that's OK then

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

You forgot to switch accounts there mate

Yes Rich has said that a couple times, so, you're all for regression not progress then? You're not even prepared to consider that those of us who do have a comparison find the new system much worse? If your car of choice brought out anew model that was much worse in every way, would you still buy it, or would you look elsewhere?

On what planet am I allowed to for regression? Remind me again who is crying about not being able to use the old system?

I’m all for tweaks to WHS, but going back to the old one? Nah.

Try to answer some of the questions you and Ian keep being asked with sensible answers not just WHS is bad, UHS was better, or deflecting with you burner account accusations. It’s just making you look even more silly.

 

[clubchamp98]

Apologies, I'd missed this beuaty at the time

View attachment 55538

So...
1. What is "the expected score"? Nobody knows because they won't tell us
2. "the expected..blah blah blah". What is this, they won't tell us?
3. See note 1
4. See note 1
5. How?
6. What calculations? None are shown. With CSS we could work it out manually
7. Well, that's OK then

Yes how can a golfer have an expected score?
Absolute rubbish, that’s why it’s a secret

 

[Billysboots]

I pointed out yesterday that the whole sideshow is getting tiresome. And really, it is.

Final polite request to all please, draw a line under it. If you continue to ignore advice then you all know what follows…….

 

[wjemather]

Apologies, I'd missed this beuaty at the time

View attachment 55538

So...
1. What is "the expected score"? Nobody knows because they won't tell us
2. "the expected..blah blah blah". What is this, they won't tell us?
3. See note 1
4. See note 1
5. How?
6. What calculations? None are shown. With CSS we could work it out manually
7. Well, that's OK then

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

You claimed there wasn't "even a hint" of how PCC is worked out? (#256).
5.6/1 gives more than just a hint of how PCC is calculated.

You claimed that an outline of the PCC process is "not set out anywhere" (#260).
5.6/1 clearly gives an outline of the process.

 

[Dunesman]

The difference is irrelevant. We are no longer using the old system. So comparing various parts of the old system to the new is entirely pointless.

Given handicap comps are pretty much that. Why not?

Comparing with the previous system is an entirely valid discussion.

There is a strong perception that the new system is unfair to, and alienating low handicappers from playing in club competitions. i.e. that the fundamental principle of WHS, and a tradition of handicapped club competitions with high numbers of entrants, does not work.

That this only affect 10 or 15 % of golfers and thus is a minority, and so it can be claimed that a great majority of club golfers have no issue and it is not a matter of discussion or discontent among them does NOT justify ignkring that discontent.

I am aware of no official communication from tge GB&I regional bodies acknowledging or addressing the issue. This certainly is most unnaceptable. If they can justify that the low handicappers are mistaken, then I think they woyld have to accept that. If the cannot justify the position, and the low men have a valid grievance, then it must be rectified. And in that case, given that we had a system that did not raise such ill feeling, it is only right to compare and learn something from it, when there is at least some view that it was superior in this respect. And that WHS, trumpeted and new and superior, in this respect, has been backward step.

 

[rulefan]

Comparing with the previous system is an entirely valid discussion.

There is a strong perception that the new system is unfair to, and alienating low handicappers from playing in club competitions. i.e. that the fundamental principle of WHS, and a tradition of handicapped club competitions with high numbers of entrants, does not work.

That this only affect 10 or 15 % of golfers and thus is a minority, and so it can be claimed that a great majority of club golfers have no issue and it is not a matter of discussion or discontent among them does NOT justify ignkring that discontent.

I am aware of no official communication from tge GB&I regional bodies acknowledging or addressing the issue. This certainly is most unnaceptable. If they can justify that the low handicappers are mistaken, then I think they woyld have to accept that. If the cannot justify the position, and the low men have a valid grievance, then it must be rectified. And in that case, given that we had a system that did not raise such ill feeling, it is only right to compare and learn something from it, when there is at least some view that it was superior in this respect. And that WHS, trumpeted and new and superior, in this respect, has been backward step.

Does this add anything new to the discussion?

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

Comparing with the previous system is an entirely valid discussion.

There is a strong perception that the new system is unfair to, and alienating low handicappers from playing in club competitions. i.e. that the fundamental principle of WHS, and a tradition of handicapped club competitions with high numbers of entrants, does not work.

That this only affect 10 or 15 % of golfers and thus is a minority, and so it can be claimed that a great majority of club golfers have no issue and it is not a matter of discussion or discontent among them does NOT justify ignkring that discontent.

I am aware of no official communication from tge GB&I regional bodies acknowledging or addressing the issue. This certainly is most unnaceptable. If they can justify that the low handicappers are mistaken, then I think they woyld have to accept that. If the cannot justify the position, and the low men have a valid grievance, then it must be rectified. And in that case, given that we had a system that did not raise such ill feeling, it is only right to compare and learn something from it, when there is at least some view that it was superior in this respect. And that WHS, trumpeted and new and superior, in this respect, has been backward step.

The words strong perception are key here.

It’s been established in the other thread that there is a pattern in some clubs of handicap manipulation from their lower players to maintain a lower index than they perhaps should have. This is then making them uncompetitive in their weekly comps when competing against a larger proportion of higher handicaps.

What communication do you think is missing? No amount of explanation would be well received by those who just want to use the previous system.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

On what planet am I allowed to for regression? Remind me again who is crying about not being able to use the old system?

I’m all for tweaks to WHS, but going back to the old one? Nah.

Try to answer some of the questions you and Ian keep being asked with sensible answers not just WHS is bad, UHS was better, or deflecting with you burner account accusations. It’s just making you look even more silly.

You never used UHS, so you're arguing from a point of ignorance

New /= better , and WHS proves it, I'm sorry you think the opposite, but again you have no point of reference

Glad you understand what a sock account is, strange you understood that immediately despite being a "new" user

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

You claimed there wasn't "even a hint" of how PCC is worked out? (#256).
5.6/1 gives more than just a hint of how PCC is calculated.

You claimed that an outline of the PCC process is "not set out anywhere" (#260).
5.6/1 clearly gives an outline of the process.

Ah sorry, see as a bit of a stats geek, words that are unspecific don't cut it, I'm sorry for you if this is sufficient for you, people who understand figures know this blurb means absolutely nothing

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

You never used UHS, so you're arguing from a point of ignorance

New /= better , and WHS proves it, I'm sorry you think the opposite, but again you have no point of reference

Glad you understand what a sock account is, strange you understood that immediately despite being a "new" user

Sorry Ian. But For a self proclaimed statistician you don’t half jump to the wrong conclusions on a regular basis.

I must have been the only cat 1 golfer in England playing with a WHS index 20 years ago. If I’d known, I could have fudged my handicap like they are at your clubs

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Sorry Ian. But For a self proclaimed statistician you don’t half jump to the wrong conclusions on a regular basis.

I must have been the only cat 1 golfer in England playing with a WHS index 20 years ago. If I’d known, I could have fudged my handicap like they are at your clubs

Cat 1 golfer 20 years ago that hasn't played under UHS?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Does this add anything new to the discussion?

It summarises the problem

What does your comment add?

 

[Dunesman]

Does this add anything new to the discussion?

Yes. It rebuts the contention quoted, that comparing parts of the old and new systems is pointless.
When there is a concern or cosidered flaw in the new, it is well worth exploring the old system to determine whether there has been a change of consequence, and thus the concern is valid. Furthermore, if that is the case, the good from the old system may be used as guidance for a rectification to apply to the new.

 

[Dunesman]

What communication do you think is missing? No amount of explanation would be well received by those who just want to use the previous system.

ANY communication, clarifying, refuting the concern, backing up the robustness and fairness of WHS, or, conceding there is a valid issue which is being studied or of a corrective in the pipeline for next year. As a minimum, some acknowledge that there is at least a concern, and that it is being listened to.

I am not aware of any such, but would welcome any link if anyone is familiar.

I dont feel a push to return to the old system, so a touch straw man on that point.

Similarly with the 'no amount' supposition. With no explanation whatsoever at the moment (open to correction), that is rather a long leap.

 

[Dunesman]

Discussion in the same vein from national broadcasters :

BBC Sounds - The Chipping Forecast

Join Andrew, Eddie and Iain for a golf show that doesn't take itself seriously.

www.bbc.co.uk

The topic is live. To suggest there is not widespread discontent is fingers in the ears.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Discussion in the same vein from national broadcasters :

BBC Sounds - The Chipping Forecast

Join Andrew, Eddie and Iain for a golf show that doesn't take itself seriously.

www.bbc.co.uk

The topic is live. To suggest there is not widespread discontent is fingers in the ears.

Amongst the discussion Eddie brings up an interesting point about WHS affecting juniors. Certainly it's made a big mess of our junior section. Plenty of ludicrous handicaps have emerged and competition entrances have declined. The healthy competition that once existed and formed a significant part of many golfers' young lives has been eroded and that's sad for everyone in the game. Anyone who grew up playing the game will surely acknowledge the role that golf's structure and rules played in their young lives.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

You never used UHS, so you're arguing from a point of ignorance

New /= better , and WHS proves it, I'm sorry you think the opposite, but again you have no point of reference

Glad you understand what a sock account is, strange you understood that immediately despite being a "new" user

This isn’t the only social media platform on the internet you know!

Have you done any of the stats I asked for yet?

Can you at least tell us what the exact tipping point is for being uncompetitive when we hit single figures? And from a decent sized data set, not just a few rounds at one club.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I’m 44 years old and been a member of 3 different clubs since I was 18 and currently play off 4.1. Does that qualify me as experienced?

Confused. You can't not have use UHS. I guess it was strange when you asked about handicaps being cut when no one broke par. The CSS was used in the old system and adjusted based on field performance and conditions so it was strange that you didn't appear to know that.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

Confused. You can't not have use UHS. I guess it was strange when you asked about handicaps being cut when no one broke par. The CSS was used in the old system and adjusted based on field performance and conditions so it was strange that you didn't appear to know that.

It’s easy to see why some of you are still struggling to understand the WHS.

Read what I wrote slowly and tell me if it was a statement of fact or a question.

Instead of the constant nonsense and deflection. Try and answer some of the questions you can’t or won’t answer. I don’t mind which account you post them from.