Official WHS Survey

[rulie]

Do most folk here have mates they play with that now have higher hcps than pre WHS?.. My regular partners are all lower bar 1..

I believe that some of the higher handicaps are just more realistic, after all, didn't the UHS have a maximum handicap and very limited (0.1) increases available? Some player's handicaps were much lower than their capability, and not by their choice or scoring - probably gave up playing in comps?

 

[clubchamp98]

Do most folk here have mates they play with that now have higher hcps than pre WHS?.. My regular partners are all lower bar 1..

I would say most genuine golfers handicaps havnt really changed!

The ones who wanted a bandits handicap have been helped to achieve that very easily by this new system imo.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Do most folk here have mates they play with that now have higher hcps than pre WHS?.. My regular partners are all lower bar 1..

When the WHS came in we found that anyone 6/7 or below went down whilst everyone else seemed to go up

It appears across the board that more people have been getting an increase in HC over the last couple of years and those increases have helped a good number to win a lot of comps

 

[C7usk]

Who are these supposed people though.. Someone here must actually know of these bandits and have then in their own circle of playing partners.. .. Or are we just assuming this is the case that they are manipulating their hcps... I have seen some scores and thought, how on earth have you done that... Randomly 15 shots better than what you normally score, but I am just assuming they have had one of them rounds..
Is it the same people who are winning these comps.. It must stick out like a sore thumb...

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I really like whs but could easily have liked the old system the same just the app that does it for me.

We used to have to pay £3 each time we wanted to submit an extra cards.. so wasn't much point. Where as whs do often or as little as you like plus the ability for none club golfers to get an official handicap

nothing to so with WHS, nor as you correctly have said is the App

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Really ?

Don’t think I have ever seen that at all

Any big competition or “board comp” - there is no divisions and certainly only one trophy

He's being deliberately contrarian as always. He knows full well trophies are rarely ever split in divisions, and clubs are not going to spend a fortune triplicating new trophies due to the problems caused by a useless handicap system. The weekly sweep at every club is split, that's not the point and he knows full well it's not the point

 

[wjemather]

No, Div 3 is usually the smallest. Yesterday's medal (which was won by a DIv 3 player) hasn;t been posted to HDID yet from live leaderboard status, but I'll come back to you with the figures, Div 1 is usually the largest

From what I see, division 2 is usually the largest (often significantly so) when there are 3 divisions.

Some interesting things stand out from your most recent medal: while the overall winner (by one stroke, −4 nett) was from division 3, only one other division 3 player finished in the top 40 in a field of 121 - that's just 5% finishing in the top third despite them making up 19% of the field. Division 1 players made up 45% of the top 40 despite only making up 28% of the field.

Are low handicappers really complaining about results such as these? If so, what are they looking at besides the winner's handicap/division?

 

[rulefan]

No, Div 3 is usually the smallest. Yesterday's medal (which was won by a DIv 3 player) hasn;t been posted to HDID yet from live leaderboard status, but I'll come back to you with the figures, Div 1 is usually the largest

And how did the division proportions turn out? Did Div 3 have the fewest players?

PS: Just noticed #347. Is that the comp you were referring to?

 

[Springveldt]

To be honest, I don't know of many low handicappers who are playing/expecting to win a net competition.

But if handicaps are fair and equal, I wonder why many feel like that?

 

[doublebogey7]

From what I see, division 2 is usually the largest (often significantly so) when there are 3 divisions.

Some interesting things stand out from your most recent medal: while the overall winner (by one stroke, −4 nett) was from division 3, only one other division 3 player finished in the top 40 in a field of 121 - that's just 5% finishing in the top third despite them making up 19% of the field. Division 1 players made up 45% of the top 40 despite only making up 28% of the field.

Are low handicappers really complaining about results such as these? If so, what are they looking at besides the winner's handicap/division?

Exactly this as I have shown at our club using statistical anaylisis. Old Cat 1 players have a significantly reduced chance of being the outright winner of full field competitions than previously, but the chances of finishing somewhere in the in the prizes has barely changed and is significantly better than any other handicap range as it was previously. In my view divisions are not the answer, asvery few clubs have sufficient trophies to dish out, the best way is to increase the range of prizes. We pay top 10% with prizes ranging from about £70 to about £10 and keeps players in all handicap ranges competing.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

And how did the division proportions turn out? Did Div 3 have the fewest players?

PS: Just noticed #347. Id the comp you were referring to?

Div1 - 34
Div2 - 64
Div3 - 23

 

[Banchory Buddha]

And how did the division proportions turn out? Did Div 3 have the fewest players?

PS: Just noticed #347. Id the comp you were referring to?

All comps.

We have one split comp, the Medals finals end of year for divisional winners of each monthly medal where there are three separate trophies.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

But if handicaps are fair and equal, I wonder why many feel like that?

Because they are not, there is a bias to high handicaps under WHS

 

[Banchory Buddha]

From what I see, division 2 is usually the largest (often significantly so) when there are 3 divisions.

Some interesting things stand out from your most recent medal: while the overall winner (by one stroke, −4 nett) was from division 3, only one other division 3 player finished in the top 40 in a field of 121 - that's just 5% finishing in the top third despite them making up 19% of the field. Division 1 players made up 45% of the top 40 despite only making up 28% of the field.

Are low handicappers really complaining about results such as these? If so, what are they looking at besides the winner's handicap/division?

See more then, div 1 is often our largest division, or was, numbers dropping, hmmmmmmmm, wonder why? Any thoughts?

 

[wjemather]

See more then, div 1 is often our largest division, or was, numbers dropping, hmmmmmmmm, wonder why? Any thoughts?

Looks like the division one boundary has moved down a couple of shots, moving lots of players into division two.
That could have something to do with it.

 

[rulefan]

See more then, div 1 is often our largest division, or was, numbers dropping, hmmmmmmmm, wonder why? Any thoughts?

Some years ago CONGU did (inter alia) an analysis of scores vs categories (when there were 4 then categories).

When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it can be seen that all handicap categories win in reasonable proportion to their entry i.e. Category 1 and Category 3 players typically comprise 8% and 40% of a club competition and in a ‘single class’ competition win 10% and 38% of the time.

This only covered winners but not the wide disparity of scores that cat 3 & 4 in fact recorded.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

When the WHS came in we found that anyone 6/7 or below went down whilst everyone else seemed to go up

It appears across the board that more people have been getting an increase in HC over the last couple of years and those increases have helped a good number to win a lot of comps

We see exactly that. Low guys have gotten lower and above 6/7 have gotten higher. Makes sense that average of 8 of last 20 would work for certain level of handicap and ability but not across the board. It was no coincidence that the previous system had different step changes for different categories. That all went out the window with the WHS. As I've mentioned, I think WHS is a rubbish system. In fact it's obvious it's a rubbish system.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Was going to suggest that an issue at our club is an increase in the number of stablefords versus medals, which benefits those who may have a blow-up hole. We've had a fair number of 45+ points this year, almost always from people with a handicap of 18+.

Then I remembered our Autumn meeting (Medal) was won with a 61,67 nett by a lad of 24.

I'm generally in favour of the mechanics of the new system, but there's too much discrepancy between how people are using it (i.e., some putting every card in, some putting very few in, some only putting good casual rounds in, some only putting bad casual rounds in). I'm joining the handicap committee soon, and so will be interesting to get a more accurate feel of the number of 'cancelled' general play rounds, but the number of emails we've had about it from the club suggests its happening fairly often.

Either way, it's led me to playing significantly more Scratch open stuff and team matches than in years gone by.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Some years ago CONGU did (inter alia) an analysis of scores vs categories (when there were 4 then categories).

When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it can be seen that all handicap categories win in reasonable proportion to their entry i.e. Category 1 and Category 3 players typically comprise 8% and 40% of a club competition and in a ‘single class’ competition win 10% and 38% of the time.

This only covered winners but not the wide disparity of scores that cat 3 & 4 in fact recorded.

Correct, there was a slight bonus for skill. That is no longer so.

 

[rulefan]

Correct, there was a slight bonus for skill. That is no longer so.

The 95% is there now.