Official WHS Survey

[AussieKB]

I would find it strange for a low marker to give up the game, just because the system favors the mid to high handicapper,
maybe he will not enter as many nett events, but will continue to play, what other option does he have ?
Take up bowls.

 

[PaulMdj]

I would find it strange for a low marker to give up the game, just because the system favors the mid to high handicapper,
maybe he will not enter as many nett events, but will continue to play, what other option does he have ?
Take up bowls.

What more of a chance under UHS did a scratch golfer have over a 20 handicapper?

 

[AussieKB]

Always thought if I played well under the old system I had a chance, under this system I have shot under par off a 4 handicap and did not run a place.

Plus when you see a 18 handicapper win and also go out a full shot, it just makes a mockery of the system IMO.

Which I have seen at my home course and away course.

 

[PaulMdj]

Always thought if I played well under the old system I had a chance, under this system I have shot under par off a 4 handicap and did not run a place.

Plus when you see a 18 handicapper win and also go out a full shot, it just makes a mockery of the system IMO.

Which I have seen at my home course and away course.

So when you play well, the rest of the field should not?

We keep getting these anecdotes without you answering an actual question, I’ll try again.

What has changed under WHS that gives a genuine scratch player less of a chance against a genuine 18 handicapper that they had under UHS?

 

[wjemather]

Always thought if I played well under the old system I had a chance, under this system I have shot under par off a 4 handicap and did not run a place.

Plus when you see a 18 handicapper win and also go out a full shot, it just makes a mockery of the system IMO.

And in other competitions the same score would have won. Unfortunately on that day, you were beaten, which could have happened under any system.

What happens far more often, is such players get reduced by a shot (or more) having not won.
Handicaps reflect ability, not wins. As they should.

 

[AussieKB]

Guys....I did say I had a chance, not that I would win, stop spinning it please.

 

[Dunesman]

Why would there be comms for something that isn't true?

It is true when we take competing as having a chance of winning a typical club competition. This is openly recognised by WHS, and part of the design.
In a one off match, the low man has a chance of actually winning, sure. This is why WHS suits the US golf culture of casual matches.

But averages are irrelevant when speaking of a typical UK stableford competition that is a common golf club tradition for us. Its about having a chance to WIN.

Telling the low golfer that on average he will beat a 20hc - in a field of 100 golfers you will average 25th, but the 20 hc will average 60th ! So you are beating him more often than he beats you ! Oh by the way, you will never be first. But on average you will place better, so its fine ! - is not good.

Higher handicappers cannot be scoring 5.5 shots closer to low golfers than before without killing the chances of the low hc. 5.5 shots ! There is the data that backs up exactly the anecdotes. They had some chance before. Now they have none. Of course they are saying there is no point competing under WHS.

On the issue of players leaving the game, I dont think there is any chance of that. They will continue to play golf. But that doesnt excuse EG doing nothing to restore a better parity back closer to the one that worked. Simply on grounds of fairness.
EG might prefer if they quit they game in a way - it would take the complaining off the stage.

 

[IanMac]

Membership has increased without losing one scratch or low handicapper at our place.
Not everyone is experiencing the seemingly catastrophic situation your club is.

As I mentioned, not all clubs needed to raise their membership numbers. And those are the clubs that are more likely to adjust things to suit their club golf. Certainly being talked about more and more at both clubs where I play and others that I know about. Golf Ireland already providing a template.

 

[Dunesman]

On a global level it is an improvement on using the (6) previous systems. On selected local levels it might benefit/perform better by using the 'bolt-on' options it suggests clubs/counties can use for their comps considering their members/entrants

0.85 or 0.90 single competition factors for example ?

 

[LincolnShep]

Guys....I did say I had a chance, not that I would win, stop spinning it please.

A chance of what?

 

[Dunesman]

I would find it strange for a low marker to give up the game, just because the system favors the mid to high handicapper,
maybe he will not enter as many nett events, but will continue to play, what other option does he have ?
Take up bowls.

No. That aint going to happen. But they deserve to be treated fairly, rather than just to to shove it, the US system won.

 

[Dunesman]

Always thought if I played well under the old system I had a chance, under this system I have shot under par off a 4 handicap and did not run a place.

Plus when you see a 18 handicapper win and also go out a full shot, it just makes a mockery of the system IMO.

Which I have seen at my home course and away course.

I dont have an issue with a winner going out. That is simply a feature of moving average maths, and handicaps must be based on scores as their foundation, not competition placings. The root cause of the case is that the 18hc you describe shouldnt have been off 18, but probably 15. And so wouldnt have won in the first place.

 

[Dunesman]

What more of a chance under UHS did a scratch golfer have over a 20 handicapper?

A good chance if the 20hc was scoring 4 or 5 shots fewer on average.

 

[Dunesman]

What has changed under WHS that gives a genuine scratch player less of a chance against a genuine 18 handicapper that they had under UHS?

That the 18 is now scoring an average of 4 shots better. The genuine scratch player is scoring no better.

 

[AussieKB]

A chance of what?

Making up the numbers, obviously.

 

[Slab]

0.85 or 0.90 single competition factors for example ?

Potentially yes, if that's the best fit/solution at local level. Shame its use was blocked as an option in some territories, but as we know that's not the fault of a whs

& I think altering the allowance is absolutely the right thing to do in some instances, other times it might be a divisional split and still others may be to cap entrants.
It'll work best if clubs can use all the optional 'extras'

 

[Dunesman]

Just a hypothetical : presumably there could now be clubs with no affiliation to EG, but all members are simply igolf members ?

 

[AussieKB]

Don't know why you did not use 0.93 as in OZ, you used as lot of the other changes that we introduced to the US system.

Not saying that is the right number.

 

[wjemather]

Just a hypothetical : presumably there could now be clubs with no affiliation to EG, but all members are simply igolf members ?

Affiliation is required for the course to be rated.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

I’m bored so I have just had a look on HDID at the scores and handicaps of out weekly comp winners.

A 10 index seems to be the sweet spot. But other than one particular improving junior early in the year there has only been a handful winners with an index over 18. Scoring over 40 points is uncommon. Quite a few single digit players have won too.

Monthly medals are split into 2 divisions. Div 1 scores the lowest net more often. But it’s very close.
One of our monthly medals was won playing off 8 with a net 74, only one person in div 2 broke net 80 with a 78 playing off 19.

Seems to me that my club has a decent balance. Maybe the slightly longer, reasonably difficult course evens things out. Maybe we don’t have a problem with handicap manipulation and vanity caps that some places have.