Official WHS Survey

[Voyager EMH]

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.

I like what you are trying to achieve with this. But it is not a cure-all.

The mainly social golfer, who likes to maintain a higher handicap than ability suggests, would find it very easy to submit 5 or fewer poor scores each year.
Opens, matches, AmAms, singles and betterball matchplay etc would be just as much, or even more, fun for him.
I haven't got a better idea, though.
For those who are not interested or stimulated by the notion of a reducing handicap - a system that does this well - which WHS does, I believe - is easily circumvented.

 

[Dunesman]

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.

How come Australia can run with 93% then ?

Mandated or not, what can EG do if a club chooses to run with 93%. They cant claim it breaches R&A, USGA, or WHS rules.

 

[Dunesman]

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.

I dont remember the figure, but 'rightly' is a bit imprecise, and many golfer were under the impression they should shoot CSS far more often than the system intended them to. Was it about 1 on 5 rounds CSS or better ?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

How come Australia can run with 93% then ?

Mandated or not, what can EG do if a club chooses to run with 93%. They can claim is breaches R&A, USGA, or WHS rules.

Back end software is not set up to adjust PH like this, so clubs couldn't do it even if they wanted to. The percentages are hard coded in

But any club going against the handicapping guidelines could see themselves being suspended from their authority, making members handicaps non-portable. However much I hate WHS, not being able to play elsewhere would be a complete deal breaker for me

 

[Dunesman]

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.

That ticks a lot of the boxes for me also, other than the caps which I think needs to be tighter. Other than in exceptional cases, when of course there can be flags for a committee to intervene manually, a one shot increase in the normal operation of the algorithm is enough. That is effectively what we had in the old system. And it worked ! Now not only can indexes rise by three shots, but they can do so very quickly. Previously it was a max of 1. No need to reinvent the wheel. Just put back the element that worked.

 

[Dunesman]

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

Or what does a club have to lose if it allocates prizes according to a factor of their choosing ?

 

[Dunesman]

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.

That was no different under the old system though, when your counting scores was a tapering influence of all scores in your history going back years too. If you reduce the variability, say a cap of 1, then the time issue fades away. That someone can play three days in a row and rise three shots is wrong. But if they could only rise by 1, then that is no different than we had before anyway.

 

[Voyager EMH]

How come Australia can run with 93% then ?

Mandated or not, what can EG do if a club chooses to run with 93%. They can claim is breaches R&A, USGA, or WHS rules.

I imagine it does breach the R&A Rules Of Handicapping adopted by England Golf.
If a private members club run a comp with 93%, or 90%, I don't really know what "action" EG can take. I also would like to know.
It would have to be reported to them first of all.

I have played in a club run AmAm where 100% was used rather than 85%. I did not report this to EG however. Maybe I should have.
If I had reported it, I wonder what EG would have done about it.

 

[wjemather]

How come Australia can run with 93% then ?

Mandated or not, what can EG do if a club chooses to run with 93%. They can claim is breaches R&A, USGA, or WHS rules.

There are options within the WHS system that are available for local authorities. This is one such option.

Clubs cannot administer official handicaps unless they are affiliated to the authorised authority in their jurisdiction. One of the conditions of union affiliation is to follow the rules of handicapping and any additional guidance issued by the union. Clubs that go rogue risk affecting their affiliation.

 

[Dunesman]

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.

Would that not make for some very inaccurate indexes ? Someone doesnt play for a year. They submit one score. That differential is their handicap. The next day they play off it and beat it by 20 shots, as us perfectly possible in the normal variability of the handicap golfer. 52 points? I hear the rest if the field cry. Who game him that handicap ?

 

[wjemather]

I imagine it does breach the R&A Rules Of Handicapping adopted by England Golf.
If a private members club run a comp with 93%, or 90%, I don't really know what "action" EG can take. I also would like to know.
It would have to be reported to them first of all.

I have played in a club run AmAm where 100% was used rather than 85%. I did not report this to EG however. Maybe I should have.
If I had reported it, I wonder what EG would have done about it.

Usually, clubs that diverge from the allowances are unaware they are mandatory. As such, the first step would be the county union (re)educating the club regarding the mandate and reminding them of the requirement to follow the RoH and EG guidance.

 

[wjemather]

Back end software is not set up to adjust PH like this, so clubs couldn't do it even if they wanted to. The percentages are hard coded in

It is only restricted for certain comps that are acceptable for handicapping. The restriction was placed at the instruction of the unions to ensure compliance with those mandatory allowances.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

It is only restricted for certain comps that are acceptable for handicapping. The restriction was placed at the instruction of the unions to ensure compliance with those mandatory allowances.

Who runs comps that are not acceptable for handicapping?

 

[Dunesman]

I imagine it does breach the R&A Rules Of Handicapping adopted by England Golf.
If a private members club run a comp with 93%, or 90%, I don't really know what "action" EG can take. I also would like to know.
It would have to be reported to them first of all.

I have played in a club run AmAm where 100% was used rather than 85%. I did not report this to EG however. Maybe I should have.
If I had reported it, I wonder what EG would have done about it.

I understand the need for them to enforce and ensure a consistent application of the determining of handicap indexes, and course indexes. But not how that should extend to determining the rankings in a competition. They are surely on shaky ground when, while technically they have the scope to implement a variant of WHS to their affiliated clubs, they are the ones not implementing the full original WHS. Changes to the allowances wouldnt even be in breach of WHS. It would be more WHS than EG themselves. "Stop implementing WHS fully. Implement OUR modification of it". Even if entitled to do so, it wouldnt come across well.

 

[Dunesman]

Who runs comps that are not acceptable for handicapping?

Most clubs do. Countless variations of scrambles for example.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

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.

Those that have agreed or quoted about the time aspect of qualifying scores have not thought it through. It effects only the low-ish % of golfers who don't play 20 rounds a year, and those golfers that don't fall into 3 categories

1) Consistent golfers playing half a dozen or so rounds a year so: 14 h/c two years ago, 14 h/c last year, 14 h/c now - This scenario makes no difference whether you use old scores or not

2) Golfers having a great run of scores this year compared to previous years: These scores + the 1 or two best scores from previous year(s) work out his current h/c - This scenario makes virtually no difference

3) Golfers having a bad run of scores this year compared to previous years: I can only see one scenario, other golfers at the club saying: "This guy's been 14 h/c for years and only last year won so and so comp with 41 points, and now you are only using his current few bad rounds and these give him a 20 h/c" - make up you own mind if this has made any difference whether you use all last 20 rounds or only current rounds

I like a good argument.. oops sorry discussion, so if you have good reasons to not include old scores, please let me know what I've missed.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Most clubs do. Countless variations of scrambles for example.

We're talking about handicapping, mjw talks about non qualifying comps.

 

[D-S]

How come Australia can run with 93% then ?

Mandated or not, what can EG do if a club chooses to run with 93%. They cant claim it breaches R&A, USGA, or WHS rules.

It breaches the rules of handicapping as applied in GB&I which are published on the website of the club”s governing body, in my club’s case EG.
Just as breaching any rule that Clubs have to follow the ultimate sanction is disaffiliation and therefore the removal of their ability to issue handicaps.

 

[wjemather]

We're talking about handicapping, mjw talks about non qualifying comps.

We're actually talking about clubs ability to use allowances other than those mandated, and most of the mandatory allowances apply to formats in which scores are not acceptable for handicapping in GB&I.

Again, who is mjw?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Again, who is mjw?

Three time world champion Welsh snooker player.