Official WHS Survey

[Deleted member 30522]

In England the Handicap Allowances are MANDATORY.

Clubs are not allowed use different allowances.

in *CONGU*

 

[Deleted member 30522]

WHS can hardly be blamed if congu are gonna tie the hands of the very features/options that were initially conceived to make sure any group of golfers weren’t disadvantaged

Are CONGU running any survey of their mngt/decision making of WHS or are they being given a free pass

Are those who are “completely negative” in the poll thread, actually negative about whs or congu (does it even matter to you)

Eh? Clubs could have used 100% for small fields, CONGU did the right thing and said no it should always be 95%, but the problem is 95% isn;t enough, it should probably be 90%, and maybe lower, though I think 90% would probably do it

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Which authorities though?

More and more it seems WHS offers way more flexibility to tailor handicaps based on circumstances/format/field etc. Just that in the UK some of this ability to ‘best fit’ has been removed

This isn’t the first time in the various whs threads that EG or congu have overridden/restricted the whs outline/template, so those in the UK don’t use whs to its potential and players then complain its somehow ‘whs’ that doesn’t work

This is just so wrong, there is no flexibility to give smaller playing handicaps, only bigger, and only in singles strokeplay in small fields. I don;t know what other issues you're refering to so please explain?

 

[Slab]

Eh? Clubs could have used 100% for small fields, CONGU did the right thing and said no it should always be 95%, but the problem is 95% isn;t enough, it should probably be 90%, and maybe lower, though I think 90% would probably do it

Eh? Clubs could've used 90% but congu/federations have stopped them

I mean if I’m gonna complain about something being broken, I think it’d be better to know if it was broken before it left the factory, or if the delivery company dropped it in my driveway

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Its been pointed out to me that you guys cant actually do this (congu won’t allow)

No idea what their objection is. I mean running a comp off a PH of say 90% or 85% has zero bearing on the +/- handicap adjustments from the comp scores, it only impacts the nett position placings of the specific comp
i.e wouldn’t it mean that a mid/high 40’s pts comp score would be very much less likely to occur but the gross scoring that would’ve achieved such a points haul would still gain the appropriate index reduction for that player

This is not possible under WHS

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Eh? Clubs could've used 90% but congu/federations have stopped them

I mean if I’m gonna complain about something being broken, I think it’d be better to know if it was broken before it left the factory, or if the delivery company dropped it in my driveway

WHS stopped them

 

[Slab]

This is just so wrong, there is no flexibility to give smaller playing handicaps, only bigger, and only in singles strokeplay in small fields. I don;t know what other issues you're refering to so please explain?

This is just so wrong

edit to add R&A extract : all the flexibility a club committee needs for smaller playing handicaps (blocked in UK)

 

[Dunesman]

In England the Handicap Allowances are MANDATORY.

Clubs are not allowed use different allowances.

I dont know what they mean by mandatory or how far their jurisdiction reaches. Changing allowances locally in a club is entirely fully compliant with WHS. In fact, as per the table, it would seem even more in line with the WHS irtext than EG is implementing. No handicap indexes will be affected in any way, and remain fully legal. All that is being modified, and slighly, will be the winners list. They can run a 95% list in parallel and throw it in the bin if that keeps EG happy. But really they have no influence on how a club chooses to rank its competition winners.

 

[Dunesman]

WHS stopped them

As I read it, they didnt. Regional associations decided to do their own thing, hence the multiple flavours of the so called, world, handicap system. Aus is running with 93% we are told. WHS did not collapes.

 

[Dunesman]

Eh? Clubs could've used 90% but congu/federations have stopped them

I mean if I’m gonna complain about something being broken, I think it’d be better to know if it was broken before it left the factory, or if the delivery company dropped it in my driveway

They did the fixing before seeing if it was broken, by 'mandating' the 95% rather than a flexible value. Like CR-par, our regional bodies seem to be the luddites, putting their own restricted implementations of WHS. Had they gone with 85%, 90%, 95%, 100% according to field size, maybe we wouldnt have the mess. A match is a field size of 2. Thats OK. But for the 130 golfers my club has every weekend. No.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I dont know what they mean by mandatory or how far their jurisdiction reaches. Changing allowances locally in a club is entirely fully compliant with WHS. In fact, as per the table, it would seem even more in line with the WHS irtext than EG is implementing. No handicap indexes will be affected in any way, and remain fully legal. All that is being modified, and slighly, will be the winners list. They can run a 95% list in parallel and throw it in the bin if that keeps EG happy. But really they have no influence on how a club chooses to rank its competition winners.

There was no need for this allowance nonsense in stableford or stroke singles with UHS.

 

[Dunesman]

There was no need for this allowance nonsense in stableford or stroke singles with UHS.

True, it was inherent in the low anchoring of handicaps. But it isnt that the WHS method cant work in my view, its just that the parameters need adjusting to our form of golf.

 

[D-S]

I dont know what they mean by mandatory or how far their jurisdiction reaches. Changing allowances locally in a club is entirely fully compliant with WHS. In fact, as per the table, it would seem even more in line with the WHS irtext than EG is implementing. No handicap indexes will be affected in any way, and remain fully legal. All that is being modified, and slighly, will be the winners list. They can run a 95% list in parallel and throw it in the bin if that keeps EG happy. But really they have no influence on how a club chooses to rank its competition winners.

Mandatory means required by law or rule.

Clubs do not have the authority to change allowances, whether this maybe compliant with WHS or not.

The jurisdiction of England Golf reaches all clubs that are affiliated to them which is every club in England whose members have official handicaps.

Once again, clubs cannot change handicap allowances full stop.

 

[wjemather]

There was no need for this allowance nonsense in stableford or stroke singles with UHS.

Allowances existed but they were "Full" (100%).
Also, there were more noticeable allowances in the past; for example, singles Stableford used to be ⅞, and singles match play used to be ¾.

Need for different allowances depends on the desired equity.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Allowances existed but they were "Full" (100%).
Also, there were more noticeable allowances in the past; for example, singles Stableford used to be ⅞, and singles match play used to be ¾.

Need for different allowances depends on the desired equity.

Those examples were quite some time ago.

Am I alone is thinking it ludicrous that the size of a field for a competition should affect a person's handicap for that competition?

I hadn't really given this aspect of WHS much thought before reading these posts. As you may have gathered, I view the fundamental problem being the philosophy of a form-based handicap coupled with the fact the calculation does nothing to recognise the spread of the 8 scores. Each golfer's 8 scores has a distribution and a standard deviation can easily be calculated. Instead of adjusting handicaps according to a player's likelihood of shooting his handicap, which could easily be built in to the form-based HI calculation, we have this allowance nonsense which assumes all golfers off a certain handicap have about the same probability of shooting their handicap.

Who the hell is running this ****show?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

This is just so wrong

edit to add R&A extract : all the flexibility a club committee needs for smaller playing handicaps (blocked in UK)
View attachment 55588

Field size and make up of field have an impact on equity.

I mean, seriously!

So depending on how many are playing in the competition an 18 handicapper could get 18 shots or maybe only 16 shots. His normal playing partner is a 4 handicap and he always gets 4. And that's deemed fair and equal.

 

[Backache]

It's the sheer damned arrogance of those in charge that bugs me.
Its fine for them to say for their competitions we look at General play scores and if we think your a cad you can't play in our competition. But if the clubs try and remedy the idiocy inflicted on them Its against the rules .

 

[wjemather]

Those examples were quite some time ago.

Am I alone is thinking it ludicrous that the size of a field for a competition should affect a person's handicap for that competition?

I hadn't really given this aspect of WHS much thought before reading these posts. As you may have gathered, I view the fundamental problem being the philosophy of a form-based handicap coupled with the fact the calculation does nothing to recognise the spread of the 8 scores. Each golfer's 8 scores has a distribution and a standard deviation can easily be calculated. Instead of adjusting handicaps according to a player's likelihood of shooting his handicap, which could easily be built in to the form-based HI calculation, we have this allowance nonsense which assumes all golfers off a certain handicap have about the same probability of shooting their handicap.

Who the hell is running this ****show?

Field size and make up of field have an impact on equity.

I mean, seriously!

So depending on how many are playing in the competition an 18 handicapper could get 18 shots or maybe only 16 shots. His normal playing partner is a 4 handicap and he always gets 4. And that's deemed fair and equal.

It's an inescapable fact of handicapping (regardless of system) that the balance of equity changes with field size and composition. It's logical that allowances should change to maintain the balance.
There inevitably comes a point with large fields where the balance is precarious and equity cannot be maintained as one end of the range is severely disadvantaged.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

It's an inescapable fact of handicapping (regardless of system) that the balance of equity changes with field size and composition. It's logical that allowances should change to maintain the balance.
There inevitably comes a point with large fields where the balance is precarious and equity cannot be maintained as one end of the range is severely disadvantaged.

What do those words even mean?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

It's the sheer damned arrogance of those in charge that bugs me.
Its fine for them to say for their competitions we look at General play scores and if we think your a cad you can't play in our competition. But if the clubs try and remedy the idiocy inflicted on them Its against the rules .

The more I learn about WHS the more I think the survey will simply justify more layers of sticking plasters. The wound will never be stitched I suspect.