Official WHS Survey

[Banchory Buddha]

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.

It's not a perceived advantage, it's a statistically proven advantage

 

[Deleted member 36483]

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.

Full shot difference here also. Our knockout cup had a who's who of names of well regarded members over the decades. Now becoming a list of who's he?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

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

They don't though, at least I don't know any that do. The justification for them in the first place is flakey and so taking a decision to go further is controversial and consistent golfers should question the logic.

 

[RichA]

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

Ok. I thought that but I'm sure one of your fellow rule fans corrected me saying that EG mandate 95% for comps in affiliated clubs.

 

[Dunesman]

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

Thats what my club is looking at. I feel change of the caps would help also, but as that would actually change handicaps would put us as outlaws so that will only come if EG moves on it.

 

[Dunesman]

It's not a perceived advantage, it's a statistically proven advantage

Yes, statistically proven. And now correctly perceived by real world golfers as well. EG might have gotten away with it if it hadnt been for those pesky single figure men !

 

[Dunesman]

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

Entitlement to an equitable handicap system yes.
Coralling them into competing amongst themselves with categories within comoetitions is surely an admission of failure.

 

[Slab]

Hold the phone, I just read up on the R&A webpage about 95% allowance just being a 'recommendation' So if a club or other comp committee believes its has just reason they can change the 95% and raise/lower it as they believe is fair
i.e

For the members who believe WHS really doesn't work for xyz handicap group/favours high handicappers etc, have you raised with the committee?
If so surely there can only be two outcomes

1. They agree with you and adjust comp allowance
2. They disagree with you and make no change

Surely at clubs where the stats clearly show low single fig players have nae chance of a win then this option has already been tried... how did it go?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Think that's the most posts in a row without someone going off in a tangent.

 

[RichA]

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Hold the phone, I just read up on the R&A webpage about 95% allowance just being a 'recommendation' So if a club or other comp committee believes its has just reason they can change the 95% and raise/lower it as they believe is fair
i.e
View attachment 55581
For the members who believe WHS really doesn't work for xyz handicap group/favours high handicappers etc, have you raised with the committee?
If so surely there can only be two outcomes

1. They agree with you and adjust comp allowance
2. They disagree with you and make no change

Surely at clubs where the stats clearly show low single fig players have nae chance of a win then this option has already been tried... how did it go?

As I mentioned earlier. This percentage idea assumes standardised golfers through the handicaps. The 18 handicapper who shoots 18 over most times he plays is banjaxed but his mate that can shoot 10 over occasionally but usually hits 25 over is still in the hunt for a prize.

 

[Dunesman]

Hold the phone, I just read up on the R&A webpage about 95% allowance just being a 'recommendation' So if a club or other comp committee believes its has just reason they can change the 95% and raise/lower it as they believe is fair
i.e
View attachment 55581
For the members who believe WHS really doesn't work for xyz handicap group/favours high handicappers etc, have you raised with the committee?
If so surely there can only be two outcomes

1. They agree with you and adjust comp allowance
2. They disagree with you and make no change

Surely at clubs where the stats clearly show low single fig players have nae chance of a win then this option has already been tried... how did it go?

Exactly that. Smarter men than me (mainly accountants for some reason on our committee, but I guess they know their maths) are looking at precisely that at the moment. 0.9 and 0.85 have been mentioned but there is no proposal yet. I am not sure if they can do non 0.05 steps like 0.89 for eg if they came up with that as being a more balanced playing field. I would expect whatever they propose will be voted through. The low men will be there in force, the committee tend not to make such proposals unless they feel they have the numbers to get it, and some higher men like myself will approve it on a feeling of equity even if doing away with an advantage we have at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Exactly that. Smarter men than me (mainly accountants for some reason on our committee, but I guess they know their maths) are looking at precisely that at the moment. 0.9 and 0.85 have been mentioned but there is no proposal yet. I am not sure if they can do non 0.05 steps like 0.89 for eg if they came up with that as being a more balanced playing field. I would expect whatever they propose will be voted through. The low men will be there in force, the committee tend not to make such proposals unless they feel they have the numbers to get it, and some higher men like myself will approve it on a feeling of equity even if doing away with an advantage we have at the moment.

Red herring. Sticking plaster solution. Have I mentioned the consistency thing?

 

[Dunesman]

Red herring. Sticking plaster solution. Have I mentioned the consistency thing?

I would agree. But it seems the limit of what we can do as a club to at least improve the situation somewhat. We are certainly not going to go offside on handicaps themselves, so until EG take some action, an imperfect improvement is the best we have.

 

[RichA]

As I mentioned earlier. This percentage idea assumes standardised golfers through the handicaps. The 18 handicapper who shoots 18 over most times he plays is banjaxed but his mate that can shoot 10 over occasionally but usually hits 25 over is still in the hunt for a prize.

Is that not the nature of sport though?
One on one, only a small percentage of the time an underdog having a go will beat the odds against superior opposition.
But, if a field contains a large number of underdogs all having a go at a comparatively small number of their superiors then the odds are tipped in their favour.
I'm still struggling to fathom a system other than reduced PH on a sliding scale for the field make-up that would work in amateur golf.
But then maybe the person who has a go and gets lucky deserves to beat the person who plays it safe.

But then there are other factors in golf.
If the weather or the course is brutal or there are multiple rounds then the consistent player should win.
If the weather and course are easier and it's a single round then a player who throws caution to the wind is more likely to run away with it.

As you or Duneguy suggested, one size rarely fits all.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Ok. I thought that but I'm sure one of your fellow rule fans corrected me saying that EG mandate 95% for comps in affiliated clubs.

Handicap allowances, not playing handicap

 

[D-S]

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

In England thgey are mandatory and clubs cannot vary them. This is applicable for formats that are acceptable for handicaps and for those that are just a bit of fun with changing rules such as Texas Scrambles

 

[RichA]

It's not a perceived advantage, it's a statistically proven advantage

That was not the case at my old club with field sizes usually ~30.
Very steady mid-teens and SF golfers won most comps and there were very rarely any silly high scores.
But at my new club with much bigger field I can see that high HI golfers win more frequently.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Hold the phone, I just read up on the R&A webpage about 95% allowance just being a 'recommendation' So if a club or other comp committee believes its has just reason they can change the 95% and raise/lower it as they believe is fair
i.e
View attachment 55581
For the members who believe WHS really doesn't work for xyz handicap group/favours high handicappers etc, have you raised with the committee?
If so surely there can only be two outcomes

1. They agree with you and adjust comp allowance
2. They disagree with you and make no change

Surely at clubs where the stats clearly show low single fig players have nae chance of a win then this option has already been tried... how did it go?

That's because the R&A don't over rule handicap authorities in each country where they are the rules makers.

Congu has stipulated that 95% is the individual allowance. The WHS also recommends that for small fields it should be 100%, again congu have made it 95% for any field size



Edit: I see richa has already posted this.

 

[Slab]

That's because the R&A don't over rule handicap authorities in each country where they are the rules makers.

Congu has stipulated that 95% is the individual allowance. The WHS also recommends that for small fields it should be 100%, again congu have made it 95% for any field size



Edit: I see richa has already posted this.

Doesn't that mean that WHS, in itself, isn't the problem though?

edit: and the R&A survey is pointless !