Official WHS Survey

[Voyager EMH]

Me 4.6

Best 4 - 3.4 .............at my course PH = 5 (4.53)
Best 6 - 4.0 .............at my course PH = 5
Best 8 - 4.6 .............at my course PH = 6
best 10 - 5.0 ...........at my course PH = 6
Best 12 - 5.4 ............at my course PH = 7 (6.75)

Going from best 4 to best 12 creates a difference of 2.0 in HI, but 2.2 in playing handicap.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

@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?

See my earlier post. I, myself, am one of the issues. None of us are not classic examples for WHS.

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.

I'm currently 7.5 but, if a could play card scoring competitions regularly through the summer months when the weather is kind I'd no doubt be lower. I'm a 4 handicapper in the old system and capable of shooting level or better on my day. Subtracting 1 standard deviation puts me on 4.7 which is probably fair.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Me 4.6

Best 4 - 3.4 .............at my course PH = 5 (4.53)
Best 6 - 4.0 .............at my course PH = 5
Best 8 - 4.6 .............at my course PH = 6
best 10 - 5.0 ...........at my course PH = 6
Best 12 - 5.4 ............at my course PH = 7 (6.75)

Going from best 4 to best 12 creates a difference of 2.0 in HI, but 2.2 in playing handicap.

Are you subtracting 1 standard deviation from those?

 

[Voyager EMH]

This thread (and others) seem to give a view that high handicaps are "too high" for too many golfers.
But that is not the main gripe that I have been hearing for the last few years at my club.

I've been hearing moans that, "My handicap is too low, I can't play to it!". This comes from players who can not accept that you play to your handicap only 20% of the time.

This is usually because they mainly play social golf and want to play to their handicap 50% of the time or more.
This incentivises them to put poor scores in comps to have what they view as a realistic handicap. Some have done this.
Their scores record appear quite consistent.

Are you subtracting 1 standard deviation from those?

..er...no, sorry.

 

[Dunesman]

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?

The issue is that it isnt 1%. More like 15 %. Roughly single figure men and better. Possibly the same issue in the womens game but probably not working for 15 handicap and better.
Its not a dismissable minority issue by any means.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

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.

Just tried with the scores of one of the best players in the club, currently +2.

Including subtracting 1 standard deviation...

Sample of 4, +5.5
Sample of 8, +4.4
Sample of 10, +3.8
Sample of 12, +3.4

His lowest score is 5 under so formula of subtracting a standard deviation with 4 in a sample has failed miserably

 

[Deleted member 36483]

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.

Another approach is to add the standard deviation to the lowest score in the 20.

 

[PaulMdj]

See my earlier post. I, myself, am one of the issues. None of us are not classic examples for WHS.

I'm currently 7.5 but, if a could play card scoring competitions regularly through the summer months when the weather is kind I'd no doubt be lower. I'm a 4 handicapper in the old system and capable of shooting level or better on my day. Subtracting 1 standard deviation puts me on 4.7 which is probably fair.

Surely the weather, IG’s decision to insist on 4 cards and you rushing the cards and playing badly can’t be blamed on WHS.

I’m positive with decent weather and plenty of summer Golf I could be off single figures.

Maybe, just maybe right now you should be off 7 and next summer you’ll be back to 4, again it’s not the fault of WHS you’ll not play any qualifiers between now and April. Surely everyone in your Club is in the same boat.?

 

[PaulMdj]

The issue is that it isnt 1%. More like 15 %. Roughly single figure men and better. Possibly the same issue in the womens game but probably not working for 15 handicap and better.
Its not a dismissable minority issue by any means.

The figure I used was quoted by another user, maybe the figure is somewhere between 1 & 15, or worse, sad fact is, none of us know.

 

[Dunesman]

Another approach is to add the standard deviation to the lowest score in the 20.

Yes. I still feel the more damped higher handicaps are, so bigger number of scores averaged, would limit the fluctuations that I think lead to someone of us in that range having a couple of shot too many, and so an advantage as a group in larger fields.

I am 20.1

Taking :
Best 4 : 18.4
Best 6 : 19.3
Best 8 : 20.1
Best 10 : 20.8
Best 12 : 21.5

It does look like it could work. Not really having a deep insight into the mathematics has it a stronger foundation than just applying a factor of 0.85 or something rather than the 0.95 ?
A 20 handicapper does seem to me to have 2 shots more than needed against a Cat 1 golfer. I was generally 19-20 before WHS, so my handicap hasnt really changed. But maybe its a bit at both ends - I might have a shot more but it doesnt stick out as wrong, and the low man has a shot less, which in itself doesnt stick out either. But the net result is still that I and my like (and speaking for myself as well as many of my regular playing partners in a similar range, I can assure no manipulation or cheating or questionable GP cards) whether we like it or not, now have a 2 shot advantage that we didnt have in 2019. And there are lots of us !

 

[Dunesman]

Another approach is to add the standard deviation to the lowest score in the 20.

Would that net result bring us back to handicaps more like pre WHS ? WHS seems committed to the x from 20 applied uniformly, as they were the foundation of the US and Aus systems, so I would say there would be a strong reluctance to make the adjustment you suggest.
Unless it solves the problems the Australians acknowledge where the existing system cannot equally cater for high placing and wins, and so we have chosen high placings rather than wins for low handicaps (and in England even more so, with our 0.95 rather than their 0.93)

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Would that net result bring us back to handicaps more like pre WHS ? WHS seems committed to the x from 20 applied uniformly, as they were the foundation of the US and Aus systems, so I would say there would be a strong reluctance to make the adjustment you suggest.
Unless it solves the problems the Australians acknowledge where the existing system cannot equally cater for high placing and wins, and so we have chosen high placings rather than wins for low handicaps (and in England even more so, with our 0.95 rather than their 0.93)

Maybe. It needs a bit of thought. If I'm honest I think it's difficult to beat the UHS index algorithm. It grew out of experience and improved what had gone before.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

The figure I used was quoted by another user, maybe the figure is somewhere between 1 & 15, or worse, sad fact is, none of us know.

I used the 1% , but it's could be anywhere up to 10%,

The issue is that it isnt 1%. More like 15 %. Roughly single figure men and better. Possibly the same issue in the womens game but probably not working for 15 handicap and better.
Its not a dismissable minority issue by any means.

It might be more than 1% , maybe up to 10%, but most golfers have an handicap that make them equally competitive, low and high. And I didn't suggest these 1 to 10% are dismissible, but the current system doesn't do enough to bring them in line with the 90%+ . That's why Caps, ESR and possibly a Stnd Deviation needs looking at.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Fergus having another go at WHS

4 Things I’d Change About Golf's World Handicap System

Fergus Bisset gives his thoughts on how the World Handicap System might be altered to be more equitable and help more UK golfers enjoy their golf...

www.golfmonthly.com

 

[rulefan]

I'd never heard of him before but I'm not surprised to see he is a low capper.

 

[AussieKB]

I'd never heard of him before but I'm not surprised to see he is a low capper.

And are you surprised that anyone over 15 handicap loves this system ?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Fergus having another go at WHS

4 Things I’d Change About Golf's World Handicap System

Fergus Bisset gives his thoughts on how the World Handicap System might be altered to be more equitable and help more UK golfers enjoy their golf...

www.golfmonthly.com

I don't need to add anything to that. Gets the points across perfectly and his suggestions are decent.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I'd never heard of him before but I'm not surprised to see he is a low capper.

He should be ignored then?

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

Fergus having another go at WHS

4 Things I’d Change About Golf's World Handicap System

Fergus Bisset gives his thoughts on how the World Handicap System might be altered to be more equitable and help more UK golfers enjoy their golf...

www.golfmonthly.com

That’s as blatant a click bait article as you will ever see .

Whoever this fellow is, all he’s done is read some of the guff on here and pretty much copy and pasted it. Quality journalism.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

See my earlier post. I, myself, am one of the issues. None of us are not classic examples for WHS.

I'm currently 7.5 but, if a could play card scoring competitions regularly through the summer months when the weather is kind I'd no doubt be lower. I'm a 4 handicapper in the old system and capable of shooting level or better on my day. Subtracting 1 standard deviation puts me on 4.7 which is probably fair.

So you have been maintaining a vanity cap?

It sounds like WHS is doing its job and giving you an index that reflects your actual ability. Saying you could do this, that and the other if the circumstances were just right is all well and good, but your scores seem to show you aren’t quite as good as you think you are.

Maybe some of your resentment is coming from that, as the WHS has pushed you up to an index you are a bit embarrassed about?