Official WHS Survey

[Dunesman]

Any attempt to work around the guidance in this way would be contrary to the guidance, not to mention exceedingly time-consuming to enforce.
The only approved restrictions along these lines are likely to be those designed to highlight potential manipulation, e.g. comparing comp & GP scores (as per EG's elite event policy).
If there are problems with individual handicaps, the committee should be dealing with them.

The problems arent with individuals, more the system, and I would feel it a greater breach of the spirit of handicapping to actual adjust the indexes of 50 players or whatever to bring their handicaps back down to before a 2 or 3 shot recent increase. Correcting it within the competition calculation itself strikes me as much fairer.

National Club Golfer also has a good podcast, who have taken a few deep dives on this over the last couple of years and I would say will revisit it in the light of the survey, although one of its contributors is such a stickler for the rules, if the rule said any player getting a birdie must jump in a bath of paint, he would turn up to play with a bath of paid tetherered to his trolley.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

You're so blinkered in hatred for whs you can't even see it

Just explain

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Just when you think the Hitler analogy was top of the crazy stuff on this thread .

If public transport and players who shoot their handicap every time is all you’ve got to defend your views then you’ve no argument at all.

Even the best players in the world have a 12 to 15 shot spread in their scores. To suggest handicap golfers are in any way consistent is bonkers.

Yeah, nobody is saying that for gawds sake

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

Yeah, nobody is saying that for gawds sake

Have I imagined Ian constantly talking about consistent players being at a disadvantage? Apologies if I have.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Have I imagined Ian constantly talking about consistent players being at a disadvantage? Apologies if I have.

Hitler? Buses? Go and have a bath or something

 

[IanMac]

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.

Your no 3. What if the window was best 8 scores in last 5 years? Or perhaps it's better to use a percentage of the best scores for each year for 5 years say. Whatever the answer, I agree, it needs a bit of thought.

The idea of WHS, at least what we're told is the idea anyway, is that your handicap should represent current form. The word current is the issue I think.

I don't believe it's achievable as current can only work properly if everyone plays at roughly the same time regularity.

The old system had no window. It didn't concern itself with current. It drove your handicap down faster than it allowed it to rise and if any of your rounds in a bad spell were decent then it kept you down. A couple of decent rounds in 20 bad ones now will not have the same effect, your index may rise by a significant margin. And yet your record may show that you are still able to score to your best, just not so often.

What I'm saying is that most golfers will drift in and out of consistency but I don't think drifting out of consistency should mean a handicap rise.

 

[Backache]

I really don't get this compare GP scores to competitive scores for evidence of manipulation.

If the scores should be comparable what's the point of having GP scores .

If a difference is evidence of manipulation why have them.

It appears largely to allow us to have a handicap system to resemble America when our competitive traditions for which the handicap is used bare no resemblance.

 

[wjemather]

I really don't get this compare GP scores to competitive scores for evidence of manipulation.

If the scores should be comparable what's the point of having GP scores .

If a difference is evidence of manipulation why have them.

It appears largely to allow us to have a handicap system to resemble America when our competitive traditions for which the handicap is used bare no resemblance.

It's not as simple as that. A significant difference may warrant further investigation to see if there is evidence of manipulation, but is not evidence in itself.

To maintain an accurate handicap regular scores are needed. The majority of golfers do not play individual strokeplay competitions regularly.

 

[Backache]

It's not as simple as that. A significant difference may warrant further investigation to see if there is evidence of manipulation, but is not evidence in itself.

To maintain an accurate handicap regular scores are needed. The majority of golfers do not play individual strokeplay competitions regularly.

This is one of those reasons without reason. There is no mandate for frequency of cards . Some people appear to put in cards every day some have handicaps with cards dating back five or more years with scores taken from pre WHS introduction.

Its yet again the tail wagging the dog . Why on earth have commitees going through for evidence of manipulation when as you have said yourself if there is a significant discrepancy at scratch level that of itself will be taken as evidence to stop someone from entering.

 

[Dunesman]

I really don't get this compare GP scores to competitive scores for evidence of manipulation.

If the scores should be comparable what's the point of having GP scores .

If a difference is evidence of manipulation why have them.

It appears largely to allow us to have a handicap system to resemble America when our competitive traditions for which the handicap is used bare no resemblance.

Well, even if resembling America, a unified common system, and comparable handicaps was the goal, after 4 years we now have conclusive evidence that even this aim has been a complete failure.
What comment has EG or WHS made on that ? Not only has it disrupted golf here, but it has done so for nothing !

We always heard/experienced that US handicaps were not directly comparable to ours. OK. And there were rough equivalances that a US scratch was probably about a 4 here, and that the gap widened higher up, as US 18 more likely about a 24 here.

So what have we now ? The average mens handicap in the US is 3 shot lower tban the average mens in England. So not a lot if anything has changed. So much for portable, same everywhere, handicaps.
This is from their own figures. They dont need a survey or a golfer to point that out to them. Maybe they just hope people wont notice. "Its a success, hey, we have 'World' in the title, so we must have a world handicap syatem"

 

[wjemather]

This is one of those reasons without reason. There is no mandate for frequency of cards . Some people appear to put in cards every day some have handicaps with cards dating back five or more years with scores taken from pre WHS introduction.

Its yet again the tail wagging the dog . Why on earth have commitees going through for evidence of manipulation when as you have said yourself if there is a significant discrepancy at scratch level that of itself will be taken as evidence to stop someone from entering.

There is a recommendation suggestion of 20 scores over 24 months. However, the actual number of scores needed for HI to reflect ability depends on the player - e.g. an improver or decliner will require more scores than a steady consistent player.

That isn't how EG elite event policy operates. It is a trigger for review.

 

[Backache]

There is a recommendation of 20 scores over 24 months. However, the actual number of scores needed for HI to reflect ability depends on the player - e.g. an improver or decliner will require more scores than a steady consistent player.

That isn't how EG elite event policy operates. It is a trigger for review.

Well they've kept that recommendation to themselves. doubtless it exists if you state it but I've yet to meet a single person who has heard of it .

 

[IanMac]

It's not as simple as that. A significant difference may warrant further investigation to see if there is evidence of manipulation, but is not evidence in itself.

To maintain an accurate handicap regular scores are needed. The majority of golfers do not play individual strokeplay competitions regularly.

That's what I've read in a couple articles about WHS. We all need to put scores in regularly, and every time we play, for WHS to work properly.

I wonder what that means for everyone. Is it the same? Can't be otherwise they would have defined it.

Take me as an example. I play most of my competitive golf from October to April. My work is seasonal and therefore my golf is in the evenings through the spring and summer. I can still play matchplay competitions but rarely get a card in. This year Golf Ireland wants anyone who might play in a team to have 4 competition cards in the previous year's 20. So I rushed out to get my final cards in recently and played rubbish. My handicap has gone up by 1.5. My opponents will probably have a few raised eye brows through the winter and in next years matches. Of course from November to the end of March we have no counting scores so next year will probably be the same again. My WHS HI was the same as my final UHS handicap but now it's destined to rise due to my regular golf.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Your no 3. What if the window was best 8 scores in last 5 years? Or perhaps it's better to use a percentage of the best scores for each year for 5 years say. Whatever the answer, I agree, it needs a bit of thought.

The idea of WHS, at least what we're told is the idea anyway, is that your handicap should represent current form. The word current is the issue I think.

I don't believe it's achievable as current can only work properly if everyone plays at roughly the same time regularity.

The old system had no window. It didn't concern itself with current. It drove your handicap down faster than it allowed it to rise and if any of your rounds in a bad spell were decent then it kept you down. A couple of decent rounds in 20 bad ones now will not have the same effect, your index may rise by a significant margin. And yet your record may show that you are still able to score to your best, just not so often.

What I'm saying is that most golfers will drift in and out of consistency but I don't think drifting out of consistency should mean a handicap rise.

I think someone mentioned the words Current Form right at the being and now everyone just assumes that WHS is only about current form.
From my 50 years experience of playing I believe the form quote is used too freely, you can score well one day/week and than rubbish the following day/week and visa versa, 20 rounds is a lot of rounds to be just having a bit of bad form
Nearly all golfers I have known over the years and I've known and played regularly with a lot, all have found their level in the first year or so and then just tail off to their level and then the odd shot or two becomes very hard to improve, and others just get worse through old age and illnesses.
WHS works well with the 99% who play very often or very rarely and their handicap moves a shot or 2 at most from their level and this in the scheme of things makes no difference and is no problem.
The problem is the 1%, The Manipulators(cheats) and The Give-uppers who when they start bad just don't try, we all seen those guys, 40+ points once in 20 and don't score above 26 the other 19 when not in contention, They are the problem and trying to have a system that deals with them.
This is why some clubs don't have a problem, they don't have any or maybe just a few of these 1%ers
We should Harden the Caps down to 1 and 2, Harden the ESR down from 7 and 10 to 3 and 5 and use your inspired Standard Deviation in the calculation.
The people at the top won't make any changes to their system because it works well with the 99% and they just ignore the 1% problem

 

[IanMac]

Played with some wise old men yesterday, well 7 wise men and me anyway! Eight of us from 4 different clubs in Ireland and we play together at eachother's club once each throughout the year for a trophy at the end. Just a bit of fun but it's becoming less so under WHS. Handicaps are from 5 to 23. One team is running away with it this year making the final outing a bit less fun.

Boozy lunch afterwards as usual.

After discussing world politics we discussed the handicap issue and we've decided to try to make our own system specific to our private competition. The current proposal is as follows: (note old UHS categories apply but we've introduced cat 0 for plus golfers if that ever happens!)

HI is average of x best from last 20 minus 1 standard deviation.

Cat 0, x=12
Cat 1, x=10
Cat 2, x=8
Cat 3, x=6
Cat 4, x=4

We have recalculated all 8 of our handicap indexes against this formula and there's broad agreement that it feels better and is more representative of the way we view eachother.

I would be grateful for anyone else to test this idea against their own handicap record and let me know what they think.

Obviously there's a chance your calculation could straddle categories. In that case we think the handicap in the higher category might apply but also interested what you might think in that regard.

Standard Deviation Calculator

This free standard deviation calculator computes the standard deviation, variance, mean, sum, and error margin of a given data set.

www.calculator.net

 

[IanMac]

I think someone mentioned the words Current Form right at the being and now everyone just assumes that WHS is only about current form.
From my 50 years experience of playing I believe the form quote is used too freely, you can score well one day/week and than rubbish the following day/week and visa versa, 20 rounds is a lot of rounds to be just having a bit of bad form
Nearly all golfers I have known over the years and I've known and played regularly with a lot, all have found their level in the first year or so and then just tail off to their level and then the odd shot or two becomes very hard to improve, and others just get worse through old age and illnesses.
WHS works well with the 99% who play very often or very rarely and their handicap moves a shot or 2 at most from their level and this in the scheme of things makes no difference and is no problem.
The problem is the 1%, The Manipulators(cheats) and The Give-uppers who when they start bad just don't try, we all seen those guys, 40+ points once in 20 and don't score above 26 the other 19 when not in contention, They are the problem and trying to have a system that deals with them.
This is why some clubs don't have a problem, they don't have any or maybe just a few of these 1%ers
We should Harden the Caps down to 1 and 2, Harden the ESR down from 7 and 10 to 3 and 5 and use your inspired Standard Deviation in the calculation.
The people at the top won't make any changes to their system because it works well with the 99% and they just ignore the 1% problem

Yes, I agree with all of that and am beginning to come around to the idea that WHS could be saved with some improvements in the HI calculation.

You might see my other post above. What we saw when subtracting a standard deviation from a 23 handicapper was more of a reduction when the sample was 8 compared to 4. And it was a bit too harsh also on a friend who plays off 2.2. With a sample of 8 he was 0.2 but with a sample of 10 he was 0.6. He's a 1 handicapper in his own mind.

 

[Dunesman]

Played with some wise old men yesterday, well 7 wise men and me anyway! Eight of us from 4 different clubs in Ireland and we play together at eachother's club once each throughout the year for a trophy at the end. Just a bit of fun but it's becoming less so under WHS. Handicaps are from 5 to 23. One team is running away with it this year making the final outing a bit less fun.

Boozy lunch afterwards as usual.

After discussing world politics we discussed the handicap issue and we've decided to try to make our own system specific to our private competition. The current proposal is as follows: (note old UHS categories apply but we've introduced cat 0 for plus golfers if that ever happens!)

HI is average of x best from last 20 minus 1 standard deviation.

Cat 0, x=12
Cat 1, x=10
Cat 2, x=8
Cat 3, x=6
Cat 4, x=4

We have recalculated all 8 of our handicap indexes against this formula and there's broad agreement that it feels better and is more representative of the way we view eachother.

I would be grateful for anyone else to test this idea against their own handicap record and let me know what they think.

Obviously there's a chance your calculation could straddle categories. In that case we think the handicap in the higher category might apply but also interested what you might think in that regard.

Is that not the wrong way around ? Should Cat 0 not be best 4 rounds, as the most consistent category ? And Cat 4 the 12 to smooth our their variability. And then, yes, subtract the 1 stddev which is good.

A group of about 20 of us go to Portugal most March or April fir 4 or 5 rounds, and money at stake, and have mentioned needing something better than WHS too to restore a more level playing field. We would range from 3 to 26 or so. Mainly lower teens. So interested to see you this one works for you.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Yes, I agree with all of that and am beginning to come around to the idea that WHS could be saved with some improvements in the HI calculation.

You might see my other post above. What we saw when subtracting a standard deviation from a 23 handicapper was more of a reduction when the sample was 8 compared to 4. And it was a bit too harsh also on a friend who plays off 2.2. With a sample of 8 he was 0.2 but with a sample of 10 he was 0.6. He's a 1 handicapper in his own mind.

I saw your post and your system and you are really onto something, and as I said before. if we really thought about it properly with the statistical data we need, we could easily amend WHS to cover all our needs, I haven't looked into what the SD would do to the handicaps as you are looking at 1 SD only, and this most probably would need to be tweaked to half SD or more than 1 depending on categories or ranges.
I would like to think the powers that be are looking into amendments, but I wouldn't hold our breath.

 

[IanMac]

Is that not the wrong way around ? Should Cat 0 not be best 4 rounds, as the most consistent category ? And Cat 4 the 12 to smooth our their variability. And then, yes, subtract the 1 stddev which is good.

A group of about 20 of us go to Portugal most March or April fir 4 or 5 rounds, and money at stake, and have mentioned needing something better than WHS too to restore a more level playing field. We would range from 3 to 26 or so. Mainly lower teens. So interested to see you this one works for you.

Possibly. I would like to get a bit more input.

Our cat 4 guy is fairly consistent. No real possibility of him shooting the lights out.

Sample of 4, he's 24.7
Sample of 8, he's 22.9
Sample of 10, he's 23.5
Sample of 12, he's 23.9

He's 25.3 in the actual WHS

 

[PaulMdj]

I think someone mentioned the words Current Form right at the being and now everyone just assumes that WHS is only about current form.
From my 50 years experience of playing I believe the form quote is used too freely, you can score well one day/week and than rubbish the following day/week and visa versa, 20 rounds is a lot of rounds to be just having a bit of bad form
Nearly all golfers I have known over the years and I've known and played regularly with a lot, all have found their level in the first year or so and then just tail off to their level and then the odd shot or two becomes very hard to improve, and others just get worse through old age and illnesses.
WHS works well with the 99% who play very often or very rarely and their handicap moves a shot or 2 at most from their level and this in the scheme of things makes no difference and is no problem.
The problem is the 1%, The Manipulators(cheats) and The Give-uppers who when they start bad just don't try, we all seen those guys, 40+ points once in 20 and don't score above 26 the other 19 when not in contention, They are the problem and trying to have a system that deals with them.
This is why some clubs don't have a problem, they don't have any or maybe just a few of these 1%ers
We should Harden the Caps down to 1 and 2, Harden the ESR down from 7 and 10 to 3 and 5 and use your inspired Standard Deviation in the calculation.
The people at the top won't make any changes to their system because it works well with the 99% and they just ignore the 1% problem

Played with some wise old men yesterday, well 7 wise men and me anyway! Eight of us from 4 different clubs in Ireland and we play together at eachother's club once each throughout the year for a trophy at the end. Just a bit of fun but it's becoming less so under WHS. Handicaps are from 5 to 23. One team is running away with it this year making the final outing a bit less fun.

Boozy lunch afterwards as usual.

After discussing world politics we discussed the handicap issue and we've decided to try to make our own system specific to our private competition. The current proposal is as follows: (note old UHS categories apply but we've introduced cat 0 for plus golfers if that ever happens!)

HI is average of x best from last 20 minus 1 standard deviation.

Cat 0, x=12
Cat 1, x=10
Cat 2, x=8
Cat 3, x=6
Cat 4, x=4

We have recalculated all 8 of our handicap indexes against this formula and there's broad agreement that it feels better and is more representative of the way we view eachother.

I would be grateful for anyone else to test this idea against their own handicap record and let me know what they think.

Obviously there's a chance your calculation could straddle categories. In that case we think the handicap in the higher category might apply but also interested what you might think in that regard.

Standard Deviation Calculator

This free standard deviation calculator computes the standard deviation, variance, mean, sum, and error margin of a given data set.

www.calculator.net

This is were I get confused, if we agree WHS works for 99% of Golfers and the issue is the 1%, what is the real issue? Does anyone actually believe we’ll ever have a system that is 100%?

@IanMac If you know these guys, what is the issue with any of their Handicaps? Are some not playing regular? Or, not submitting cards?
Part of it feels either you don’t trust them or yous are seeing an issue that we aren’t?