Official WHS Survey

[Banchory Buddha]

A HI of 0.0

+0.5 - 0.4

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Ah, the fallacy that lower handicappers practice (and play) more and handicap systems should reward practice and consistency. How do you see that working exactly, particularly with regards to avoiding favouring erratic low handicappers who don't practice and only play once a week (or less)?

I don't think you understand "fallacy"

 

[wjemather]

+0.5 - 0.4

Defined in the Rules of Handicapping:

 

[Orikoru]

Defined in the Rules of Handicapping:
View attachment 55133

So if your handicap is +0.1 you're not scratch? Don't be daft.

 

[wjemather]

So if your handicap is +0.1 you're not scratch? Don't be daft.

Then you'd be better than scratch, a plus handicap golfer.

 

[IanMac]

*MARGINALLY

Now there's a penalty for skill where this system DOES favour higher handicappers, stats from HDID have proved that low handicappers are disadvantaged proportionally

It's pretty obvious that the higher handicap players will be more likely to win with the current calculation. Take a scratch player and a 30 index player for example. The odds of a scratch player shooting 8 under are pretty slim but many 30 handicappers are likely to have that 22 over in their locker, or even better.

To put it another way, scratch players are quite likely to have a range -3 to +3 in their 8 scores. 30 index players are very unlikely to have just a range of +27 to +33.

Some smart people came up with this calculation based on statistical analysis. Really? I just don't believe that.

 

[Orikoru]

Then you'd be better than scratch, a plus handicap golfer.

View attachment 55135

You are definitely the most pedantic member of this forum, and that is quite some accolade.

 

[wjemather]

It's pretty obvious that the higher handicap players will be more likely to win with the current calculation. Take a scratch player and a 30 index player for example. The odds of a scratch player shooting 8 under are pretty slim but many 30 handicappers are likely to have that 22 over in their locker, or even better.

Higher handicappers are more likely to win because there are more of them.

The aim of handicapping is for each player to have an equitable chance of competing, not an equal chance of shooting 44 Stableford points - something that would massively favour low handicappers.

However, there are many ways to mitigate for having large numbers of higher handicappers (and their higher potential for exceptional scores) and small numbers of low handicappers in the same medium-large field; one of the most common being handicap divisions/flights.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You are definitely the most pedantic member of this forum, and that is quite some accolade.

 

[IanMac]

Higher handicappers are more likely to win because there are more of them.

The aim of handicapping is for each player to have an equitable chance of competing, not an equal chance of shooting 44 Stableford points - something that would massively favour low handicappers.

However, there are many ways to mitigate for having large numbers of higher handicappers (and their higher potential for exceptional scores) and small numbers of low handicappers in the same medium-large field; one of the most common being handicap divisions/flights.

I don't believe that you can see my point. Probably my fault.

 

[clubchamp98]

I don't believe that you can see my point. Probably my fault.

If it’s not your fault someone will be along to explain .
To many with their head in a book and not in the real world of golf as seen every weekend in golf clubs.

 

[badgergm]

Higher handicappers are more likely to win because there are more of them.

The aim of handicapping is for each player to have an equitable chance of competing, not an equal chance of shooting 44 Stableford points - something that would massively favour low handicappers.

However, there are many ways to mitigate for having large numbers of higher handicappers (and their higher potential for exceptional scores) and small numbers of low handicappers in the same medium-large field; one of the most common being handicap divisions/flights.

What are the many other ways? We have had increasingly large fields and possibly increasing number of large handicaps. We’ve had a lot I PIF higher handicap winds this year (not really the case in last couple of years). We already have quite a few multi-round comps which helps a lot. I think we will move to more comps with divisions but I think there will be quite a lot of resistance to that.

 

[wjemather]

What are the many other ways? We have had increasingly large fields and possibly increasing number of large handicaps. We’ve had a lot I PIF higher handicap winds this year (not really the case in last couple of years). We already have quite a few multi-round comps which helps a lot. I think we will move to more comps with divisions but I think there will be quite a lot of resistance to that.

Why would there be resistance? Divisions are by far the simplest way to mitigate the exceptional scores as players are only competing against others of similar ability; they also give more people the opportunity to win something.

You've already identified one other option - multi-round competitions - but there are obvious drawbacks to them. An alternative to divisions is entirely separate competitions (a good option for medals is to restrict entry to low handicaps and hold a Stableford alongside for higher handicaps). Handicap limits (either on the comp itself of just on trophies or prizes) are a less desirable option.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Higher handicappers are more likely to win because there are more of them.

The aim of handicapping is for each player to have an equitable chance of competing, not an equal chance of shooting 44 Stableford points - something that would massively favour low handicappers.

However, there are many ways to mitigate for having large numbers of higher handicappers (and their higher potential for exceptional scores) and small numbers of low handicappers in the same medium-large field; one of the most common being handicap divisions/flights.

Good god man, they are more likely to win pro-rata under WHS, under UHS low handicappers had a slight advantage , pro-rata

Now, there is no benefit to improving, quite the reverse, get that handicap up as quickly as you can and line your mantelpiece with silver

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Why would there be resistance? Divisions are by far the simplest way to mitigate the exceptional scores as players are only competing against others of similar ability; they also give more people the opportunity to win something.

You've already identified one other option - multi-round competitions - but there are obvious drawbacks to them. An alternative to divisions is entirely separate competitions (a good option for medals is to restrict entry to low handicaps and hold a Stableford alongside for higher handicaps). Handicap limits (either on the comp itself of just on trophies or prizes) are a less desirable option.

What utter trollops. You're talking about sweeps, the trophies on offer any weekend are nearly always for the whole field. Two years now at my away club every single one round trophy has been won by a division 3 player. Yes once you go into the 36 hole or 4 rounders, the more consistent player has a fighting chance, but they are the exception, and even then still tough to beat the 30 handicappers

 

[rulefan]

What utter trollops. You're talking about sweeps, the trophies on offer any weekend are nearly always for the whole field. Two years now at my away club every single one round trophy has been won by a division 3 player. Yes once you go into the 36 hole or 4 rounders, the more consistent player has a fighting chance, but they are the exception, and even then still tough to beat the 30 handicappers

What is the ratio of div 3 to div 1 entrants?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

What is the ratio of div 3 to div 1 entrants?

Oh ma heid, you inna?

 

[IanMac]

What utter trollops. You're talking about sweeps, the trophies on offer any weekend are nearly always for the whole field. Two years now at my away club every single one round trophy has been won by a division 3 player. Yes once you go into the 36 hole or 4 rounders, the more consistent player has a fighting chance, but they are the exception, and even then still tough to beat the 30 handicappers

Yes, it irks me to see trophies being won by people who often have no real understanding of the history of the club, the game or the name on the trophy. Many of the trophies at my club are engraved with names that list a who's who of the top players and personalities over the years. Yes, generally they are low handicappers but they are also people who served on committee and steered the club and its membership to use the game of golf to enhance their lives and make friends for life. They gave to the club and the game much more than they took.

I fear those days are now behind us.

 

[wjemather]

What utter trollops. You're talking about sweeps, the trophies on offer any weekend are nearly always for the whole field. Two years now at my away club every single one round trophy has been won by a division 3 player. Yes once you go into the 36 hole or 4 rounders, the more consistent player has a fighting chance, but they are the exception, and even then still tough to beat the 30 handicappers

The results posted to HowDidiDo tell a very different story.

Edit: following-up on this with some basic analysis of the results... in 7 out of 21 Saturday comps this year, a division one player achieved the winning score (so either won or tied), and they also achieved a top-3 score in 15 out of 21.

 

[rulefan]

Oh ma heid, you inna?

View attachment 55157

That's useful to know (which I did of course) but I was simply asking if there were more div 3 players than div 1.