Official WHS Survey

[Steve Wilkes]

Handicap systems are nothing to do with being good. Its function is to have golfers good and bad compete with each other. It worked. It was a fundamental element of amateur club golf that made the sport a success. Ability, effort, practice, etc have nothing to do with a handicap system. A handicap system working perfectly quickly identifies any improvement and nullifies it. WHS broadly does that just as well I think. What spoils it is the handicap 'noise' of the higher ranges who need their handicap more closely pegged to what they might score, than what they are likely to score. The old system understood this and was based on it. WHS seems to me more based to Americans playing friendly matches. (Add in a mulligan or gimme and you have why their handicaps are 3 lower than ours)

I don't like to compare the old and new systems, but this time I will. The previous system also had trouble with rapidly improving or inconsistent higher ranges of players. Take a 43 point score, all things be equal that equates to a 2.8 cut, that still means he is 4 shots higher the next round that what he has just scored.

The ESR needs to be a lot harsher to deal immediately with the goods scores to bring his Index down, and then if it was just a complete one off, the players handicap will revert to his ability in 20 rounds time.

The Caps limit could also be tightened

And lastly IanMac's Standard Deviation suggestion to bring an index nearer to their likely ability.

With these changes WHS is sorted and this 90 page thread could be closed.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

By small you mean a limit on maximum I presume? I wonder what that limit should be.

My feeling is no. I tried to define a course that everyone is capable of getting onto every green in one shot. I don't know anyone who can't hit a putt far enough to get to a hole so everyone should be capable of 2 putts also. I'm not saying it's easy, it isn't. Nevertheless anyone who wants to get good at this form of golf can do so. That's why I would say no.

Modern thinking appears to centre around the view that those who don't want to create the time to get good at golf should still have a chance to compete against those who do. How do you design a system that works for a no, or hardly any, practice approach to golf? What would be the maximum in the par 3 course for these people so they still have a chance?

WHS doesn't appear to consider the essence of the game, i.e. application, to be as important as it was. That's progress and modern apparently. It certainly makes sense financially but that's the height of it.

I think my starting point is the same, no h/c. Follow the scores, see if handicapping is needed to keep those not so good interested. 100yds is short enough for 0 h/c but we would have to see.

Extending the point, which is why the analogy is there I believe, the longer the holes, the longer the course, the more help people need. There reaches a point that people flatline, either due to talent (lack of) time and desire to practice etc. Not everyone can be good at a sport, nor do they have to be. Every comp could be a scratch comp but then I think the scratch players would look on in envy at the 100 odd people playing in a self organised stableford comp compared to the 10-15 playing in their scratch golf comp (obviously I am making these figures up but you get my point). Handicaps exist because clubs need them to. Coming round further, how to make them fair for as many as possible. Which is where this all started .

I would enjoy the 100yd course though

 

[IanMac]

When I started playing in the 1970s the highest handicap for men was 24. I don't think there were many scratch players and plus handicappers, although possible, were unheard of.

Matchplay rules meant 3/4 difference shots. So a scratch v 24 handicapper got 18 shots. A shot a hole. The idea of someone needing two shots on a hole in a match was not entertained. Perhaps that's why I'm not modern.

I don't think I've met any able bodied male who can't get to within 100 yards of a green with 1 extra shot on a hole, par 5, 4 or 3

 

[wjemather]

The 28 did compete with the scratch o a level, or level enough, playing field.
What answer are you looking for otger than that UHS provided that. The lowering of low handicaps under WHS, and the ease and speed (through no malicious handicap maniplation or false gp cards) at which middle handicappers can find themselves with an extra 2 or 3 shots has tilted the field dramatically in their favour.

Data from HowDidiDo published a couple of years ago showed that in 2019-20, under UHS, cat 1 players averaged around 32 Stableford points, while cat 4 players averaged around 26 and cat 5 players averaged under 19.
In 2021, under WHS, those same handicap ranges averaged around 28½, 29 and 27½.

 

[PaulMdj]

The 28 did compete with the scratch o a level, or level enough, playing field.
What answer are you looking for otger than that UHS provided that. The lowering of low handicaps under WHS, and the ease and speed (through no malicious handicap maniplation or false gp cards) at which middle handicappers can find themselves with an extra 2 or 3 shots has tilted the field dramatically in their favour.
Anecdotal, so all the caveats that go with that, but in our club it is not a story of a 34 handicap scoring 49 points with a scrarch man shooting 3 under gross saying 'beaten by 10 shots, whats the point ?). But of an 18 handicapper scoring 42 points, and people saying - 18??? was he not off 15 last month. He was always a 14 or 15 !
And the man off scratch was a 1 or 2 for a decade, and really only kept a steady 0 since WHS. He liked it in a way. But 4 years down the line, the prestige/satisfaction is long gone, and the realisation that he will now never beat a field of 12-24 handicappers has sunk in.

What you are saying is not consistent with others though. Their complaint is the guys of 30+ handicaps coming in with ridiculous point. I agree with the sentiment having witnessed this happening at my Club, it is rare and a new phenomenon because the UHS simply didn’t allow it and the guys off 30+ were losing shots before hitting their first tee shot.

I do agree the 14-18 handicappers seem to be more in the winners circle than ever before, but I also believe a scratch golfer stands very little chance in any club handicap comp regardless of what system we play under.

 

[IanMac]

Data from HowDidiDo published a couple of years ago showed that in 2019-20, under UHS, cat 1 players averaged around 32 Stableford points, while cat 4 players averaged around 26 and cat 5 players averaged under 19.
In 2021, under WHS, those same handicap ranges averaged around 28½, 29 and 27½.

If simple average is the only criteria then WHS is a success.

 

[Dunesman]

Data from HowDidiDo published a couple of years ago showed that in 2019-20, under UHS, cat 1 players averaged around 32 Stableford points, while cat 4 players averaged around 26 and cat 5 players averaged under 19.
In 2021, under WHS, those same handicap ranges averaged around 28½, 29 and 27½.

Thats smoking gun right there. Surely EG can see the same data or more and so have to be aware of how results have skewed dramatically. Its difficult to correlate a 5.5 closing the gap on average to competition results, but it is clear evidence nonetheless. If there was a feeling that the win chances were reasonably fair in the past, then that 5.5 differential needs to be restored. The fine detail up to EG, but if they have the more granular data, surely they can find a formula or factors that fix it.

 

[wjemather]

Thats smoking gun right there. Surely EG can see the same data or more and so have to be aware of how results have skewed dramatically. Its difficult to correlate a 5.5 closing the gap on average to competition results, but it is clear evidence nonetheless. If there was a feeling that the win chances were reasonably fair in the past, then that 5.5 differential needs to be restored. The fine detail up to EG, but if they have the more granular data, surely they can find a formula or factors that fix it.

I think you've missed the point.
Without proper analysis it's impossible to draw any substantial conclusions about WHS from the (almost) raw HDID data other than average scoring appears to be quite balanced. However, it doesn't take analysis to see how skewed UHS was towards lower handicappers, not how fair it was. That is consistent with what we already knew about UHS.

 

[Dunesman]

I am reading it that there was no groundswell of discontent before WHS that the playing fueld wasnt level. Maybe not perfect. But in a range that people were comfortable with and gave everone a reasonable chance. Whatever it imperfection, a closing of the average gap by 5.5 shots is indisputablely a big change. And is consistent at least qualitatively with the experience of low handicappers. The distribution of scores within a category is unlikely to have changed much, or even at all. That is a function of golfer skill and not system. So if the curve has shunted 5.5 shots closer to Cat 1, it must be expected, that their score are now more often than before, beating the Cat 1 man. Cat 3 we can guess has a similar effect though possibly not quite as extreme. Sum Cats 3 and 4, consider the shots they have gained sunce 2019, their number overall, and it clearly backups up in figures, what is being felt by low golfer throughout the UK.

 

[IanMac]

I think you've missed the point.
Without proper analysis it's impossible to draw any substantial conclusions about WHS from the (almost) raw HDID data other than average scoring appears to be quite balanced. However, it doesn't take analysis to see how skewed UHS was towards lower handicappers, not how fair it was. That is consistent with what we already knew about UHS.

I know, ground hog day, but I've got to say it again. UHS favoured players who could play to, or near, their handicap the most often. Not necessarily low handicappers. The fact that more low handicappers were more likely to be in that group was neither here nor there. WHS has simply changed things to favour the more erratic golfer.

 

[PaulMdj]

I am reading it that there was no groundswell of discontent before WHS that the playing fueld wasnt level. Maybe not perfect. But in a range that people were comfortable with and gave everone a reasonable chance. Whatever it imperfection, a closing of the average gap by 5.5 shots is indisputablely a big change. And is consistent at least qualitatively with the experience of low handicappers. The distribution of scores within a category is unlikely to have changed much, or even at all. That is a function of golfer skill and not system. So if the curve has shunted 5.5 shots closer to Cat 1, it must be expected, that their score are now more often than before, beating the Cat 1 man. Cat 3 we can guess has a similar effect though possibly not quite as extreme. Sum Cats 3 and 4, consider the shots they have gained sunce 2019, their number overall, and it clearly backups up in figures, what is being felt by low golfer throughout the UK.

Fair points, I think some of the acceptance with the UHS was that was the only system most had ever experienced.

Any change on the scale we’ve witnessed will always have dissenters or people making comparisons.

Maybe in 15-20 years those who have only experienced the WHS will have very little gripes and an acceptance of “the system”.

This is not saying the WHS is correct at the moment, I believe it needs tweeking, just not to the extent others see.

 

[badgergm]

So another example of stuck in the mud discrimination!
They are either members or they aren’t.

On this basis, I trust they are able to turn up and vote at AGMs?