Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 36483]

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.

Think about this example for a moment.

A 4 handicapper who is inconsistent, and they do exist, might be shooting between 2 under and 10 over. His mate is consistent and is between 2 over and 6 over most of the time.

When you apply, say 90%, to a field containing our 4 examples, including the 18 handicappers I already mentioned, who's getting a fair deal?

Both 4 stay off 4, both 18 handicaps reduce to 16. Inconsistent 4 handicap has the best deal there.

This is why I think they should be applying an adjustment that is more specific to the player. Subtraction of 1 standard deviation is an example of that and why not just do it as part of the HI calculation in the first place?

 

[RichA]

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

edit: and the R&A survey is pointless !

Even those of us who don't mind it probably agree it could be improved.
EG allowing clubs to change handicap allowance for field make-up and size might help but it could be messy and they probably want everything standardised to maintain control and consistency.

 

[Slab]

WHS can hardly be blamed if congu are gonna tie the hands of the very features/options that were initially conceived to make sure any group of golfers weren’t disadvantaged

Are CONGU running any survey of their mngt/decision making of WHS or are they being given a free pass

Are those who are “completely negative” in the poll thread, actually negative about whs or congu (does it even matter to you)

 

[Dunesman]

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.

I think most accept there is no absolutely beyond criticism formula that will work. The old one had compromises or weaknesses also.

What is raising ire on WHS though is that we seem to have gone from an imperfect system that was nevertheless accepted as 'close enough' and didnt annoy any particular group, to one one that is more imperfect, and worse, uneven in its imperfection, in that it biases against a distinct group.
So it is valid to ask, why did you change, what was the gain, and what are you doing to modify the new system to at least bring it back to the level of what we knew for 40 years ?

This is a very reasonable request, and it absolutely must be addressed by the authorities. If they can show data that backs up we are wrong, that the new system is at least as, or more equitable than the old one, then I would accept that. But they answer to us, and must answer the charge.

 

[Dunesman]

WHS can hardly be blamed if congu are gonna tie the hands of the very features/options that were initially conceived to make sure any group of golfers weren’t disadvantaged

Are CONGU running any survey of their mngt/decision making of WHS or are they being given a free pass

Are those who are “completely negative” in the poll thread, actually negative about whs or congu (does it even matter to you)

I would not be negative on WHS as a whole. I think for Americans for example, it probably works fine. Casual matches of general play golf, it works.
For regular stabkeford and strokeplay competitions of 50-150 golfers of the full range of handicaps in the field as we are used to, it does not work in the copy and paste implementation. But that local tweaks, to cater for such competition can make it OK, still retaining the key good points or WHS.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I would not be negative on WHS as a whole. I think for Americans for example, it probably works fine. Casual matches of general play golf, it works.
For regular stabkeford and strokeplay competitions of 50-150 golfers of the full range of handicaps in the field as we are used to, it does not work in the copy and paste implementation. But that local tweaks, to cater for such competition can make it OK, still retaining the key good points or WHS.

Okish

A good handicap system would encourage golfers to try and improve their game and that improvement is evident in an increase in their competitiveness. WHS fails to do that and those who are in favour tell us they don't care about being competitive.

 

[Slab]

I think most accept there is no absolutely beyond criticism formula that will work. The old one had compromises or weaknesses also.

What is raising ire on WHS though is that we seem to have gone from an imperfect system that was nevertheless accepted as 'close enough' and didnt annoy any particular group, to one one that is more imperfect, and worse, uneven in its imperfection, in that it biases against a distinct group.
So it is valid to ask, why did you change, what was the gain, and what are you doing to modify the new system to at least bring it back to the level of what we knew for 40 years ?

This is a very reasonable request, and it absolutely must be addressed by the authorities. If they can show data that backs up we are wrong, that the new system is at least as, or more equitable than the old one, then I would accept that. But they answer to us, and must answer the charge.

Which authorities though?

More and more it seems WHS offers way more flexibility to tailor handicaps based on circumstances/format/field etc. Just that in the UK some of this ability to ‘best fit’ has been removed

This isn’t the first time in the various whs threads that EG or congu have overridden/restricted the whs outline/template, so those in the UK don’t use whs to its potential and players then complain its somehow ‘whs’ that doesn’t work

 

[RichA]

I think most accept there is no absolutely beyond criticism formula that will work. The old one had compromises or weaknesses also.

What is raising ire on WHS though is that we seem to have gone from an imperfect system that was nevertheless accepted as 'close enough' and didnt annoy any particular group, to one one that is more imperfect, and worse, uneven in its imperfection, in that it biases against a distinct group.
So it is valid to ask, why did you change, what was the gain, and what are you doing to modify the new system to at least bring it back to the level of what we knew for 40 years ?

This is a very reasonable request, and it absolutely must be addressed by the authorities. If they can show data that backs up we are wrong, that the new system is at least as, or more equitable than the old one, then I would accept that. But they answer to us, and must answer the charge.

I played golf for years but wasn't a club member and never used the old system. Was it fully automated, as WHS is, or was there a large human and potentially subjective element in designating a golfer's HI?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I played golf for years but wasn't a club member and never used the old system. Was it fully automated, as WHS is, or was there a large human and potentially subjective element in designating a golfer's HI?

Yes, no difference in that it was implemented in a computer program. We didn't have the app back then obviously but no reason why it couldn't have been introduced. The formula for working out index was significantly different and this change is most people's gripe.

 

[Dunesman]

Okish

A good handicap system would encourage golfers to try and improve their game and that improvement is evident in an increase in their competitiveness. WHS fails to do that and those who are in favour tell us they don't care about being competitive.

Thats imposing a personal view on something that most would not see in the remit of a handicap system. Handicap has the sole aim of allowing different skill levels to compete reasonably against each other. In a way, improvement bucks the system, until handicap catches up to level competitiveness again.
An ideal handicap system has all competitors start out with an equal chance of winning. i.e. who place best according to their personal base level, will win.

 

[Dunesman]

I played golf for years but wasn't a club member and never used the old system. Was it fully automated, as WHS is, or was there a large human and potentially subjective element in designating a golfer's HI?

Fully automated according to an algorithm.

 

[Dunesman]

Which authorities though?

More and more it seems WHS offers way more flexibility to tailor handicaps based on circumstances/format/field etc. Just that in the UK some of this ability to ‘best fit’ has been removed

This isn’t the first time in the various whs threads that EG or congu have overridden/restricted the whs outline/template, so those in the UK don’t use whs to its potential and players then complain its somehow ‘whs’ that doesn’t work

England Golf. Scottish Golf. They are the ones who need to tailor WHS to the golf culture of their members.

 

[RichA]

Yes, no difference in that it was implemented in a computer program. We didn't have the app back then obviously but no reason why it couldn't have been introduced. The formula for working out index was significantly different and this change is most people's gripe.

Thank you. I wondered if perhaps the new system had removed a subjective human element to make it more uniform.
Being relatively new to organised golf, the impression was often given informally that in the past golfers could influence their mate, the handicap secretary, when it came to reviews.
Is that a myth?

 

[clubchamp98]

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?

Yes when full handicap came in I got my arse kicked three years on the run even though I played quite well.
I havnt bothered since.

 

[Slab]

England Golf. Scottish Golf. They are the ones who need to tailor WHS to the golf culture of their members.

Perhaps the real purpose of the survey is to give the R&A the 'evidence' it needs to beat EG/SG/CONGU etc with to make better use of WHS

 

[clubchamp98]

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?

I think most clubs go with the recommendation from the top.
They can’t be criticised then.

But if clubs start using different allowances to suit their membership it is going to get confusing.
Especially in inter club matches.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Perhaps. But it shouldn't encourage people to play badly which is, I'm afraid, what WHS is perceived to do. 'Rewards mediocrity' was how an older lady member once put it to me.

 

[Slab]

I think most clubs go with the recommendation from the top.
They can’t be criticised then.

But if clubs start using different allowances to suit their membership it is going to get confusing.
Especially in inter club matches.

Its been pointed out to me that you guys cant actually do this (congu won’t allow)

No idea what their objection is. I mean running a comp off a PH of say 90% or 85% has zero bearing on the +/- handicap adjustments from the comp scores, it only impacts the nett position placings of the specific comp
i.e wouldn’t it mean that a mid/high 40’s pts comp score would be very much less likely to occur but the gross scoring that would’ve achieved such a points haul would still gain the appropriate index reduction for that player

 

[D-S]

I think most clubs go with the recommendation from the top.
They can’t be criticised then.

But if clubs start using different allowances to suit their membership it is going to get confusing.
Especially in inter club matches.

In England the Handicap Allowances are MANDATORY.

Clubs are not allowed use different allowances.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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

No, if we followed the R&A advice, it would be even worse, CONGU have at least mitigated slightly by not imposing the 100% PH allowance for small fields