Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 36483]

Buses round here lower and have a retractable ramp for wheelchair access...

Trains on the other hand aren't are forgiving but they were built so long ago it's difficult to adapt them to modern needs

There you go, an example of catering for a minority.

Just catering for the majority is a dangerous road as history has taught us many times.

 

[RichA]

Some "interesting" analogies being made here.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Could well be acceptable, no system will ever satisfy everyone.

Indeed, but the moans need to be minimised, with WHS the moans have reached such a crescendo that even the normally aloof R&A have felt the need to consult their users

The fact this survey came into being at all is very very telling

 

[IanM]

The fact this survey came into being at all is very very telling

Yes, but not as telling as what they do as a result of it

I suspect they will quote the huge number of general play cards lodged, increased participation and the whole thing is an awesome success.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Had a look at how our Thursday rollup ended up today. 51 played - only 6 single figure guys and mostly mid-teens to high handicappers so if there is an issue with handicaps at my place you’d maybe expect to see it manifest today with course and greens playing nice, plus a lovely sunny and dry day with only a gentle breeze mostly.

Was won by a 13 handicapper with 39pts. In total four players scored 36pts or better, with a 9 handicap lad coming 2nd.

WHS issues? Nothing much to see here I might suggest - albeit on a sample of one. Either that or these lads haven’t yet learnt how to cheat and manipulate their handicap properly

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Had a look at how our Thursday rollup ended up today. 51 played - only 6 single figure guys and mostly mid-teens to high handicappers so if there is an issue with handicaps at my place you’d maybe expect to see it manifest today with course and greens playing nice, plus a lovely sunny and dry day with only a gentle breeze mostly.

Was won by a 13 handicapper with 39pts. In total four players scored 36pts or better, with a 9 handicap lad coming 2nd.

WHS issues? Nothing much to see here I might suggest - albeit on a sample of one. Either that or these lads haven’t yet learnt how to cheat and manipulate their handicap properly

Nothing to see? I'd say a participation factor of barely 10% of single figure handicaps is a a pretty significant "something to see"

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Nothing to see? I'd say a participation factor of barely 10% of single figure handicaps is a a pretty significant "something to see"

There is that…true…though we don’t have that many SF players in the age group that tend to play in this rollup, our SF players mostly work Thursdays. I was more thinking that the winning score wasn’t silly, and given the handicaps of those playing you might have expected a silly…statistically. But again I have to reflect why I generally don’t bother playing in it…quite…

 

[Dunesman]

Indeed, but the moans need to be minimised, with WHS the moans have reached such a crescendo that even the normally aloof R&A have felt the need to consult their users

The fact this survey came into being at all is very very telling

If the the survey is coming from vibes they are feeling that all is not well with the UK WHS implementation, then that is fine. But I would hope is is only a small additional component to a serious studying of the data. They should already have reviewed, and see the issue without needing golfing footsoldiers to tell them. All the hard data is already in their own hands, and the statisticians who should have a full understanding of the underlying mathematics, should already be able to explain the problem to the administrators. And propose corrections. Feedback from the survey will only confirm to them that they will not get away with ignoring the issue and hope the discontent dies away.

 

[Dunesman]

Had a look at how our Thursday rollup ended up today. 51 played - only 6 single figure guys and mostly mid-teens to high handicappers so if there is an issue with handicaps at my place you’d maybe expect to see it manifest today with course and greens playing nice, plus a lovely sunny and dry day with only a gentle breeze mostly.

Was won by a 13 handicapper with 39pts. In total four players scored 36pts or better, with a 9 handicap lad coming 2nd.

WHS issues? Nothing much to see here I might suggest - albeit on a sample of one. Either that or these lads haven’t yet learnt how to cheat and manipulate their handicap properly

One data point as you say, but it does conform to the reported and expected pattern of WHS : a single figure golfer will tend to place high - but probably also tend to be beaten by a couple of shots by a teens handicapper.
One can draw no conclusion from one case. But that this is the anecdotal evidence, and it seems confirmed that such a pattern is indeed known to be, and deliberately designed into WHS, that is ticking off a sizeable minority who feel WHS sold them out. And for what reason they were sold out remains obscure.

 

[rulie]

One data point as you say, but it does conform to the reported and expected pattern of WHS : a single figure golfer will tend to place high - but probably also tend to be beaten by a couple of shots by a teens handicapper.
One can draw no conclusion from one case. But that this is the anecdotal evidence, and it seems confirmed that such a pattern is indeed known to be, and deliberately designed into WHS, that is ticking off a sizeable minority who feel WHS sold them out. And for what reason they were sold out remains obscure.

It sounds as though you're suggesting that the low handicappers lost their "entitlement"?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

It sounds as though you're suggesting that the low handicappers lost their "entitlement"?

If by "entitlement" you mean 'expectation of a fair system' then yes you're correct

 

[Deleted member 36483]

It sounds as though you're suggesting that the low handicappers lost their "entitlement"?

It's not just low handicappers that have lost their competitiveness. We've been through this point previously on the thread and basically it's anyone who plays to their handicap consistently. That's not exclusive to low handicappers but is more common to them.

One data point as you say, but it does conform to the reported and expected pattern of WHS : a single figure golfer will tend to place high - but probably also tend to be beaten by a couple of shots by a teens handicapper.
One can draw no conclusion from one case. But that this is the anecdotal evidence, and it seems confirmed that such a pattern is indeed known to be, and deliberately designed into WHS, that is ticking off a sizeable minority who feel WHS sold them out. And for what reason they were sold out remains obscure.

I'm not convinced the calculation was deliberately designed to make an inconsistent player unbeatable when he has his decent day. I don't think they really thought that deeply about it given the form/average calculation originates from a background not as steeped in competitive club golf.

The desire to have a one size fits all solution to a problem that has differing needs was a mistake not a well thought through solution.

 

[Dunesman]

It's not just low handicappers that have lost their competitiveness. We've been through this point previously on the thread and basically it's anyone who plays to their handicap consistently. That's not exclusive to low handicappers but is more common to them.

Yes. There being a strong correlation between score consistency and handicap, with lower handicappers being more consistent, lower handicappers are less likely to have a temporary 'bonus' shot or two on their handicap due to inconsistency. In a typical competition there will be fewer of them. And more middle handicappers - enough to ensure a high probability that someone from the higher group will have a good day, plus their bonus shots, and so giving the lower man little or no chance to win.

 

[Dunesman]

I'm not convinced the calculation was deliberately designed to make an inconsistent player unbeatable when he has his decent day. I don't think they really thought that deeply about it given the form/average calculation originates from a background not as steeped in competitive club golf.

The desire to have a one size fits all solution to a problem that has differing needs was a mistake not a well thought through solution.

Communication is noticeably scant on the thinking behind WHS, but I think it was in one of the Golf Australia communications as they went through an itterative process over a much longer process than us, did explicitly state that the system was chosen to be biased towards low handicappers placing high in a field, but a given low handicapper having a lower chance of winning. And that levelling both probabilities was not possible. I think this aligns with what we have seen in the UK implementation. And low men, though never openly informed of this bias by EG, have discovered it through the experience of playing WHS over the last few years.

It looks as though the 8 from 20, 3 soft cap, and 0.95, fundamentals of WHS are system to cater for general match play. And not weekly or multi-weekly competition play with 100+ golfers across the spectrum of handicaps (exacerbated by the already widened spectrum pre WHS of 28 going to 54).
Square peg in a round hole.

 

[RichA]

Communication is noticeably scant on the thinking behind WHS, but I think it was in one of the Golf Australia communications as they went through an itterative process over a much longer process than us, did explicitly state that the system was chosen to be biased towards low handicappers placing high in a field, but a given low handicapper having a lower chance of winning. And that levelling both probabilities was not possible. I think this aligns with what we have seen in the UK implementation. And low men, though never openly informed of this bias by EG, have discovered it through the experience of playing WHS over the last few years.

It looks as though the 8 from 20, 3 soft cap, and 0.95, fundamentals of WHS are system to cater for general match play. And not weekly or multi-weekly competition play with 100+ golfers across the spectrum of handicaps (exacerbated by the already widened spectrum pre WHS of 28 going to 54).
Square peg in a round hole.

Clarification C of the handicapping rules acknowledges the issues of larger fields and the make up of the fields' handicaps with a recommendation that playing handicap allowance should be reduced below 95%.
But, as discussed historically in a different thread, the national unions chose to ignore this and go with a mandatory blanket 95%. Reducing it to 90% or lower for larger fields would give higher handicap golfers less of a perceived advantage.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Communication is noticeably scant on the thinking behind WHS, but I think it was in one of the Golf Australia communications as they went through an itterative process over a much longer process than us, did explicitly state that the system was chosen to be biased towards low handicappers placing high in a field, but a given low handicapper having a lower chance of winning. And that levelling both probabilities was not possible. I think this aligns with what we have seen in the UK implementation. And low men, though never openly informed of this bias by EG, have discovered it through the experience of playing WHS over the last few years.

It looks as though the 8 from 20, 3 soft cap, and 0.95, fundamentals of WHS are system to cater for general match play. And not weekly or multi-weekly competition play with 100+ golfers across the spectrum of handicaps (exacerbated by the already widened spectrum pre WHS of 28 going to 54).
Square peg in a round hole.

Interesting how Golf Australia actually stated that openly. Perhaps they didn't think too much of the design but at least understood it and wanted to communicate that understanding?

As you say, evening out probability of a win for a player in singles matchplay seems to have been the only consideration where the current system succeeds in that design. The inconsistent player should win more but, anecdotally, inconsistent players generally are less likely to win the overall knockout competition as they will not sustain decent form through the rounds. Someone who avoids getting an inconsistent player on a good day will win. Bad luck if you aren't so lucky because you'll probably be done by the 14th!

 

[Dunesman]

Clarification C of the handicapping rules acknowledges the issues of larger fields and the make up of the fields' handicaps with a recommendation that playing handicap allowance should be reduced below 95%.
But, as discussed historically in a different thread, the national unions chose to ignore this and go with a mandatory blanket 95%. Reducing it to 90% or lower for larger fields would give higher handicap golfers less of a perceived advantage.

Indeed. And maybe that is the sufficiently simple fix that they could/should implement, without having to root and branch change WHS which we all know will not happen.
Maybe the 0.93 like Aus, and tightening of tthe soft cap would be more optimal - reducing competition allowances for higher men, and reducing the variability of handicaps.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Clarification C of the handicapping rules acknowledges the issues of larger fields and the make up of the fields' handicaps with a recommendation that playing handicap allowance should be reduced below 95%.
But, as discussed historically in a different thread, the national unions chose to ignore this and go with a mandatory blanket 95%. Reducing it to 90% or lower for larger fields would give higher handicap golfers less of a perceived advantage.

And that's how the consistent higher handicappers are even more badly penalised.

Reduce everyone's handicap by 1 standard deviation. That would be fairer.

 

[AussieKB]

Interesting how Golf Australia actually stated that openly. Perhaps they didn't think too much of the design but at least understood it and wanted to communicate that understanding?

As you say, evening out probability of a win for a player in singles matchplay seems to have been the only consideration where the current system succeeds in that design. The inconsistent player should win more but, anecdotally, inconsistent players generally are less likely to win the overall knockout competition as they will not sustain decent form through the rounds. Someone who avoids getting an inconsistent player on a good day will win. Bad luck if you aren't so lucky because you'll probably be done by the 14th!

Also in OZ we give full shot difference in match play, another plus for the high handicapper, great standing on the 1st tee and know you are giving 18 shots or more, hence not much match play comps here now, am member of two clubs and there is not one match play comp, also have access to a lot of clubs and the same there.

 

[rulefan]

Of course Handicap Allowances are only recommendations. Clubs can vary them if they are not happy. They don't affect handicaps.