Official WHS Survey

[wjemather]

What do those words even mean?

The equity of any handicap system is measured as the probability of one or more outcomes. The simplest measure is the probability of winning, and this is the only thing some people are looking at. More equitable systems also use other measures, e.g. high finishes, play-to/beat handicap, etc. There can never be a perfectly even chance of achieving all the measured outcomes for everyone in the field, so there is a balance to be struck.

The probabilities of the measured outcomes change as field size and composition of handicaps change. Allowances can be adjusted to maintain a balance of those probabilities but the larger the field and the more extreme the handicap distribution, the more precarious the balance becomes until it cannot be maintained. Ultimately, there will be a severe disadvantage in one or more outcomes for players at the extremes.

 

[rulie]

What are the reasons that Congu mandated the allowances and don't allow clubs to make their own decisions for their comps?

 

[D-S]

As a far as I am aware the survey is done by the R&A and, if so, any and all changes would have to be agreed at the WHS Operations Group level. This means that they would have to agreed by the R&A and USGA who are responsible for handicapping worldwide.
Therefore any suggestions from just CONGU are extremely unlikely to be adopted if all the other main bodies are broadly happy with WHS. The largest single ares being the US, followed by the European Golf Association only then by CONGU.
I would really not hold out any hope at all that this survey, however strong the results or positive the suggestions, will, of itself, lead to any changes at all in WHS.
Changes in terms of local responsibilities such as acceptability or frequency of GP cards or handicap allowances are controlled at a country level so these are quite possible but I would assume they would, even if agreed, only come in at the next revision in 2028.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

The equity of any handicap system is measured as the probability of one or more outcomes. The simplest measure is the probability of winning, and this is the only thing some people are looking at. More equitable systems also use other measures, e.g. high finishes, play-to/beat handicap, etc. There can never be a perfectly even chance of achieving all the measured outcomes for everyone in the field, so there is a balance to be struck.

The probabilities of the measured outcomes change as field size and composition of handicaps change. Allowances can be adjusted to maintain a balance of those probabilities but the larger the field and the more extreme the handicap distribution, the more precarious the balance becomes until it cannot be maintained. Ultimately, there will be a severe disadvantage in one or more outcomes for players at the extremes.

Explain that to the 18 and 4 handicap playing in their stableford each week.

Honestly, someone has lost the plot on this. In the old days a handicap was the number of shots needed for a player to shoot the standard scratch score when playing 'rightly'.

Now we have gone away from that so we need to employ Betfred algorithms to fix the nonsense.

 

[RichA]

Explain that to the 18 and 4 handicap playing in their stableford each week.

Honestly, someone has lost the plot on this. In the old days a handicap was the number of shots needed for a player to shoot the standard scratch score when playing 'rightly'.

Now we have gone away from that so we need to employ Betfred algorithms to fix the nonsense.

How did the old system deal with the inconstant golfers of any handicap that you mentioned earlier, who might regularly produce a round significantly better or worse than their handicap would predict?

 

[wjemather]

Explain that to the 18 and 4 handicap playing in their stableford each week.

Honestly, someone has lost the plot on this. In the old days a handicap was the number of shots needed for a player to shoot the standard scratch score when playing 'rightly'.

Now we have gone away from that so we need to employ Betfred algorithms to fix the nonsense.

No-one needs to know the mathematics behind the system, and barely a handful would have any desire to have it explained to them.

What days were these? What does that even mean? And how would you explain something so subjective (and inherently unfair) to your 18 and 4 handicappers?

 

[D-S]

How did the old system deal with the inconstant golfers of any handicap that you mentioned earlier, who might regularly produce a round significantly better or worse than their handicap would predict?

We used to do it by having divisions - as we do now.

We used to moan about the high handicappers - as we do now.

We used to moan about bandits - as we do now.

 

[Backache]

Whether people need to know the mathematics behind PCC is barely the point. The point is the process should be open and accountable . The mathematics need not be complicated and under the changeable UK weather within a day it may well be that for local purposes an element of subjectivity would be useful.

It smells of someone wanting to make a quick buck by establishing a complex secret system to maintain intellectual property at the expense of the golfing community as a whole.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

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?

I know we haven't agreed much on this topic Ian, But I think you are on to something here.
I like WHS, Course Ratings, Stroke Ratings, Best 8 from 20, The idea of PCC etc.. , but I know there is a concern in trying to use this system with fairly large fields.
My amendments would be the following,

1) Soft Cap & Hard Cap reduced by 50% to 1.5 & 3 , as I think a max of 3 shots in a year would cover the deteriorating golfer sufficiently to make him still feel competitive.

2) Clubs should be given a freer role in how they use the Handicap Index, 95% 80% etc.., They could then vary their competitions throughout the year, This would be two-fold, to add variation and also see which type of comps are favoured by each specific club.

3) For a while I've been trying to think how one system could cope with all scenarios, regarding the range of scores between lower & higher handicappers in big fields, and I must give credit to IanMac for the missing piece in the jigsaw. Use Standard Deviation of scores on their record and build this figure into the original Index calculation, If done correctly this should equalise the chance of consistent and inconsistent golfers shooting good scores that are in reality equal to their ability.

4) The app for inputting GP scores should have a tick box that covers; This round is Comp Rules, Friendly, Likely Best Score, 4BBB etc.. Clubs should be then able, through the app/system produce an Index accordingly for their specific needs.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I know we haven't agreed much on this topic Ian, But I think you are on to something here.
I like WHS, Course Ratings, Stroke Ratings, Best 8 from 20, The idea of PCC etc.. , but I know there is a concern in trying to use this system with fairly large fields.
My amendments would be the following,

1) Soft Cap & Hard Cap reduced by 50% to 1.5 & 3 , as I think a max of 3 shots in a year would cover the deteriorating golfer sufficiently to make him still feel competitive.

2) Clubs should be given a freer role in how they use the Handicap Index, 95% 80% etc.., They could then vary their competitions throughout the year, This would be two-fold, to add variation and also see which type of comps are favoured by each specific club.

3) For a while I've been trying to think how one system could cope with all scenarios, regarding the range of scores between lower & higher handicappers in big fields, and I must give credit to IanMac for the missing piece in the jigsaw. Use Standard Deviation of scores on their record and build this figure into the original Index calculation, If done correctly this should equalise the chance of consistent and inconsistent golfers shooting good scores that are in reality equal to their ability.

4) The app for inputting GP scores should have a tick box that covers; This round is Comp Rules, Friendly, Likely Best Score, 4BBB etc.. Clubs should be then able, through the app/system produce an Index accordingly for their specific needs.

Thanks for understanding that point I've been trying to make. As I've mentioned, not a fan of WHS, but the HI calculation is so base it obviously can be improved.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Thanks for understanding that point I've been trying to make. As I've mentioned, not a fan of WHS, but the HI calculation is so base it obviously can be improved.

We are most probably at the bookends of our thoughts on WHS, but if it was left to us two to sort out over a drink we could come up with most ideal system ever invented

 

[Deleted member 30522]

This is just so wrong

edit to add R&A extract : all the flexibility a club committee needs for smaller playing handicaps (blocked in UK)
View attachment 55588

Yes blocked in congu. There is no flexibility, so what you mean is I am so right. The handicap allowances given by congu are mandatory!

 

[rulie]

Yes blocked in congu. There is no flexibility, so what you mean is I am so right. The handicap allowances given by congu are mandatory!

Why are they blocked? What does congu have to gain or lose?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

We are most probably at the bookends of our thoughts on WHS, but if it was left to us two to sort out over a drink we could come up with most ideal system ever invented

I'm also not keen on 'the last 20 scores' approach. My feeling is that there needs to be a time aspect also. Some people's 20 scores are spread over 3 years and others over 3 months.

 

[The Fader]

Make it 12 month max period for scores to be eligible.

And just adjust the existing matrix to:

No rounds - you play off scratch
1 - 5 rounds HI = lowest differential
6 - 10 rounds HI = average of best 2 differentials
11 - 15 rounds HI = average of best 3 differentials
16 - 20 rounds HI = average of best 4 differentials

The time restriction reflects form better
Fewer counting scores reflects potential ability better
Takes twice as long for the unscrupulous tiny minority to manipulate their HI. Won't stop it. Cheats will cheat whatever.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Why are they blocked? What does congu have to gain or lose?

Wow. You want me to guess at that when we don't even have the formula for PCC? Or how the allowances were derived? Or what an "expected score" is?

 

[rulie]

Wow. You want me to guess at that when we don't even have the formula for PCC? Or how the allowances were derived? Or what an "expected score" is?

None of those questions are related to my questions, which are purely about congu, not WHS.

 

[Slab]

Yes blocked in congu. There is no flexibility, so what you mean is I am so right. The handicap allowances given by congu are mandatory!

So you're saying your issue is with congu and whs is not as bad as you thought

I suspect you're right

 

[Deleted member 30522]

So you're saying your issue is with congu and whs is not as bad as you thought

I suspect you're right

Jesus Christ no. Congu have blocked the use of 100% allowance in singles medal play, that's a good thing, 95% is bad enough, imagine getting 100% of course handicap?

They've also blocked "most likely score", matchplay scores, and (tho not WHS) the use of the local rule where you don't need to take stroke and distance for OB or a lost ball for competitive play

Congu are doing just fine, it's whs that's the issue

 

[Deleted member 30522]

None of those questions are related to my questions, which are purely about congu, not WHS.

Congu have nothing to gain, they've stopped the possibility of 100% singles allowance because 95% is already too much as we've seen

What they would have had to lose is even more trust going with WHS, they're doing their best to help the R&a out as they don't seem to be able to help themselves