What Would You Change About the WHS?

[harpo_72]

Best 8 from last 20 scores gives me 4.6

Best 8 from last 12 months (24 scores) gives me 4.3

I started this year with 4.3, went as high as 5.4, got back to 4.3, then up to 4.6 when that one score from the early 4 dropped off.
Something very similar would have occurred, I imagine, with a best 8 from previous 12 months throughout.
Others may be quite different, I accept.

Interesting if I follow that my HI drops from 9.2 to 8.2 … but I only played 6 times this year in competition and had no GP cards.
I think I would propose the GP cards only give you a 0.1 gain and any competition cards are standard rules apply. The notion of a limiting GP cards per week is good .. do you really need to keep doing them ? So reducing that to 2 without a competition card that week would probably reduce the level of manipulation being applied.
My club doesn’t let you win prizes if you don’t have 6 competitive qualifiers in a 12 month period… but still GP manipulation can impact.. but then you would no end of WhatsApp groaning

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Taking this further. What if any score over XX months dropped off and they used the same formula & rational that’s used for setting the initial WHS handicap… but in reverse
So once a preset age is reached (tbd) you gradually go down from having 20 cards to 19, 18, 17 etc and the formula average used for Index also drops (see table below)
Once a player has no cards in current date range then their handicap goes inactive or the player can add to their total by putting in cards again and start rising from 12-13-14 etc etc

View attachment 55425

That hurts my head. I think I get it though. Bit of refining but I get your thinking

 

[Swango1980]

Interesting if I follow that my HI drops from 9.2 to 8.2 … but I only played 6 times this year in competition and had no GP cards.
I think I would propose the GP cards only give you a 0.1 gain and any competition cards are standard rules apply. The notion of a limiting GP cards per week is good .. do you really need to keep doing them ? So reducing that to 2 without a competition card that week would probably reduce the level of manipulation being applied.
My club doesn’t let you win prizes if you don’t have 6 competitive qualifiers in a 12 month period… but still GP manipulation can impact.. but then you would no end of WhatsApp groaning

Not sure how that could work based on the mathematics of the system?

Your Index is simply based on the average of your best 8 of 20. Your last 20 scores are what they are, just as your Top 8 are what they are. If you submit a GP score, you will knock off your 21st oldest score, which could be a great round, it could be a poor round. If you knock off a great round, what formula could you use to only go up 0.1?

I'm guessing you'd have to completely rewrite the system and create something similar to what we had before, rather than make a small tweak to the current system.

Maybe comparing GP scores with Comp scores, and limiting your Index to a value closer to Comp Index if there is a big difference? But, even then, I can't see that being viable. Some people only ever submit GP scores, or may only have a handful of Comp scores over several years. Or Vice Versa.

 

[Swango1980]

Taking this further. What if any score over XX months dropped off and they used the same formula & rational that’s used for setting the initial WHS handicap… but in reverse
So once a preset age is reached (tbd) you gradually go down from having 20 cards to 19, 18, 17 etc and the formula average used for Index also drops (see table below)
Once a player has no cards in current date range then their handicap goes inactive or the player can add to their total by putting in cards again and start rising from 12-13-14 etc etc

View attachment 55425

Surely, if you did this, players whose latest scores where poor would find that their handicap would start jumping up significantly. They'd start losing earlier scores that where better. Bit like a beginner golfer in reverse, whose worst scores are often early on.

 

[sjw]

I'd make it a rule that every time someone makes a thread about WHS on an online forum, they get their handicap suspended for 3 months.

 

[Slab]

Surely, if you did this, players whose latest scores where poor would find that their handicap would start jumping up significantly. They'd start losing earlier scores that where better. Bit like a beginner golfer in reverse, whose worst scores are often early on.

That's why if you've got say 5 or less cards within last 12 months only the one very best score would count as a players Index
Has to be a better way than taking 8 from 20 across 2 years

 

[Swango1980]

That's why if you've got say 5 or less cards within last 12 months only the one very best score would count as a players Index
Has to be a better way than taking 8 from 20 across 2 years

The very best score over the last 12 months? Or the very best score among their actual last 20, even though that might have been over 12 months ago?

 

[harpo_72]

Not sure how that could work based on the mathematics of the system?

Your Index is simply based on the average of your best 8 of 20. Your last 20 scores are what they are, just as your Top 8 are what they are. If you submit a GP score, you will knock off your 21st oldest score, which could be a great round, it could be a poor round. If you knock off a great round, what formula could you use to only go up 0.1?

I'm guessing you'd have to completely rewrite the system and create something similar to what we had before, rather than make a small tweak to the current system.

Maybe comparing GP scores with Comp scores, and limiting your Index to a value closer to Comp Index if there is a big difference? But, even then, I can't see that being viable. Some people only ever submit GP scores, or may only have a handful of Comp scores over several years. Or Vice Versa.

You would separate out the GP from competition and then set the constraints there .. there are no mathematical gymnastics required. You would identify if the GP card impacted your counting scores. Then work from there .. I would work it out but I stopped doing pro bono stuff

 

[Swango1980]

You would separate out the GP from competition and then set the constraints there .. there are no mathematical gymnastics required. You would identify if the GP card impacted your counting scores. Then work from there .. I would work it out but I stopped doing pro bono stuff

I'll await until I see someone give me the maths before I'm convinced it would be something simple to do.

Some people may only ever submit GP scores, or 18-19 GP rounds in their last 20. So would be interested to see how their Index would be calculated compared to someone who has 100% competition rounds, who would presumably just use the current formula.

And, given that hopefully the vast majority of people are honest golfers, if GP scores are somehow treated differently so that increases are more restricted, yet GP scores are treated normally when the player shoots fantastic rounds to get cuts, then I can't help but think all those honest golfers will have handicaps far too low for them. Simply to try and combat the very small amount of golfers that try and con the system.

 

[Slab]

The very best score over the last 12 months? Or the very best score among their actual last 20, even though that might have been over 12 months ago?

12 months

The idea I commented on was to remove/discount cards that were older than 12 months (good or bad) as cards that old don't represent current form/ability
So I reasoned that the calculation formula would also have to change whenever a player no longer has at least 20 cards within last 12 months (i.e can't just do best 8 from 15 or whatever)

 

[Banchory Buddha]

iplay handicaps are not official handicaps.

pretty sure he meant iGolf?

 

[Swango1980]

12 months

The idea I commented on was to remove/discount cards that were older than 12 months (good or bad) as cards that old don't represent current form/ability
So I reasoned that the calculation formula would also have to change whenever a player no longer has at least 20 cards within last 12 months (i.e can't just do best 8 from 15 or whatever)

OK

I think that goes back to my point though, that a player could see their handicap start to jump up significantly. For example, perhaps they had a good period in the summer of 2023, but in 2024 have not been able to hand in many cards for whatever reason. And not played top that 2024 level, at least in the cards they have submitted. Maybe the weather was rubbish, or another reason. But, in general, people still appreciate the golfer's ability is still up there with the 2024 level. So, getting big increases might feel wrong to many, now that good scores are being taken away from the record, and handicap based on a much more limited data set

I suppose the opposite could be true on someone that hasn't been able to submit many scores in last year, but did manage to go out and shoot a dream round or hit a remarkable purple patch in last 12 months. Their handicap could start to plummet towards their best ever round, maybe get into low single figures, while everyone knows that are nowhere near that good.

I get the reasoning behind it, so not rubbishing it. Just thinking how it could work in theory, and whether it would cause more headaches than problems it solves. There are also 2 extremes. The golfer who has barely submitted a card in the last year, and their handicap isn't reflecting their current ability as it could still be using scores from 2, 3, 4, etc years ago. Then there is the golfer like me, who has submitted nearly 60 scores in 2024 so far. My handicap is more reflective of what I've done in the last couple of months, and so arguable if I've had a rubbish couple of months but not a permanent decline, my handicap will be a lot higher and I'll benefit when I reach my next purple patch

 

[wjemather]

We have always relied on largely self-taught and/or untrained volunteers and proshop/club staff to administer the system and educate golfers, so irrespective of the handicap system, I'd introduce a free education and qualification programme for handicap committees and others.

Record and submit scores from unauthorized formats where the player plays their own ball (e.g. match play, 4BBB) perhaps using MLS. These scores would not be used in the calculation of the HI but would be available for use by committees during reviews.

I'd also seek improvement in the reporting and tools available to those committees (and county advisors), particularly with regard to reviews and recommended adjustments. Better integration with ISVs would also help.

Given there are many large field competitions that are not held in divisions (e.g. trophy/board comps), there should be flexibility in the allowances, as described in the RoH, to maintain equity in these competitions. I wouldn't want to see a chaotic Wild West scenario of clubs deciding their own allowances and there being no consistency, so perhaps there could be different mandatory allowances based on field size (i.e. as field size increases, allowances decrease). Edit: this could be done dynamically by software to also account for balance of low/mid/high handicaps in the field, but players would probably rather know what the allowances are before they start.

My thoughts on suggestions made by others:
Shrinking the caps and/or extending the LHI window seems reasonable but would require increased committee oversight to ensure those that genuinely need higher handicaps get them.
Changes to the equity/balance of the system (best 6 of 20, lower allowances, etc.) must be evidenced, or done with a defined goal of providing an advantage to a particular group.
Many golfers don't submit lots of scores, so a 24 month period (rather than 12) would be a more reasonable time frame for any such restriction; also, such a limitation would also require a reasonably high minimum number of scores over the period to produce a reliable HI for everyone.

 

[Slab]

OK

I think that goes back to my point though, that a player could see their handicap start to jump up significantly. For example, perhaps they had a good period in the summer of 2023, but in 2024 have not been able to hand in many cards for whatever reason. And not played top that 2024 level, at least in the cards they have submitted. Maybe the weather was rubbish, or another reason. But, in general, people still appreciate the golfer's ability is still up there with the 2024 level. So, getting big increases might feel wrong to many, now that good scores are being taken away from the record, and handicap based on a much more limited data set

I suppose the opposite could be true on someone that hasn't been able to submit many scores in last year, but did manage to go out and shoot a dream round or hit a remarkable purple patch in last 12 months. Their handicap could start to plummet towards their best ever round, maybe get into low single figures, while everyone knows that are nowhere near that good.

I get the reasoning behind it, so not rubbishing it. Just thinking how it could work in theory, and whether it would cause more headaches than problems it solves. There are also 2 extremes. The golfer who has barely submitted a card in the last year, and their handicap isn't reflecting their current ability as it could still be using scores from 2, 3, 4, etc years ago. Then there is the golfer like me, who has submitted nearly 60 scores in 2024 so far. My handicap is more reflective of what I've done in the last couple of months, and so arguable if I've had a rubbish couple of months but not a permanent decline, my handicap will be a lot higher and I'll benefit when I reach my next purple patch

Yeah its very much on the assumption that 'what would you change' doesn't involve moving from 'form' back to 'potential'
They'd need to throw in a bunch of profiles and see how each index behaved as the calculation changed. but since they've already devised the scalable table for allocating an index under 20 cards there shouldn't be a need to reinvent it, but yeah it may need a tweak

 

[Swango1980]

More generally, I actually think I liked a lot more about the older system, albeit I do like the fact Slope is now used so that is can take into account the relative difficulty of each course for different ability golfers.

So, perhaps a better system would simply be:

• Score Differential calculated for the round (as now)
• If Score Differential is lower than current Index, Index drops (drop bigger for higher golfers than lower golfers). Basically like old system
• If Score Differential is higher than current Index by a certain amount (i.e. outside a buffer zone), then Index increased by 0.1. If significantly outside the buffer zone, perhaps allow it to go up 0.2 max
• Add back in Continuous Review type things, and leave it up to the Committee to decide if a golfer genuinely needs a bigger increase than the system is giving them

I know the above will never happen, as it is reverting to something very similar to what we had before. But I think it would address some of the issues people are still having with WHS?

 

[Klimski]

How about: your handicap is set at January 1st based on the previous 12 months of play (best 8 scores in that previous year) - then you can track improvement or deterioration over the course of a year, but your actual handicap only changes as of the next Jan 1st.

So, let's say I start the year at 18.3 - play really great all year, and in the 'hcp tracking app' I see that as of next year, I'll be a hcp 15.2. But, during the year everything I play is off 18.3. That way, I'm competing to a set level, but only taking my 'profit' at the year's end.

Would that help? I'm still a bit in the dark as to why the WHS is terrible.

 

[rulefan]

We have always relied on largely self-taught and/or untrained volunteers and proshop/club staff to administer the system and educate golfers, so irrespective of the handicap system, I'd introduce a free education and qualification programme for handicap committees and others.

Record and submit scores from unauthorized formats where the player plays their own ball (e.g. match play, 4BBB) perhaps using MLS. These scores would not be used in the calculation of the HI but would be available for use by committees during reviews.

I'd also seek improvement in the reporting and tools available to those committees (and county advisors), particularly with regard to reviews and recommended adjustments. Better integration with ISVs would also help.

Given there are many large field competitions that are not held in divisions (e.g. trophy/board comps), there should be flexibility in the allowances, as described in the RoH, to maintain equity in these competitions. I wouldn't want to see a chaotic Wild West scenario of clubs deciding their own allowances and there being no consistency, so perhaps there could be different mandatory allowances based on field size (i.e. as field size increases, allowances decrease). Edit: this could be done dynamically by software to also account for balance of low/mid/high handicaps in the field, but players would probably rather know what the allowances are before they start.

My thoughts on suggestions made by others:
Shrinking the caps and/or extending the LHI window seems reasonable but would require increased committee oversight to ensure those that genuinely need higher handicaps get them.
Changes to the equity/balance of the system (best 6 of 20, lower allowances, etc.) must be evidenced, or done with a defined goal of providing an advantage to a particular group.
Many golfers don't submit lots of scores, so a 24 month period (rather than 12) would be a more reasonable time frame for any such restriction; also, such a limitation would also require a reasonably high minimum number of scores over the period to produce a reliable HI for everyone.

I agree with all your suggestion, in particular

Record and submit scores from unauthorized formats where the player plays their own ball (e.g. match play, 4BBB) perhaps using MLS. These scores would not be used in the calculation of the HI but would be available for use by committees during reviews.

I'd also seek improvement in the reporting and tools available to those committees (and county advisors), particularly with regard to reviews and recommended adjustments. Better integration with ISVs would also help.

 

[Swango1980]

How about: your handicap is set at January 1st based on the previous 12 months of play (best 8 scores in that previous year) - then you can track improvement or deterioration over the course of a year, but your actual handicap only changes as of the next Jan 1st.

So, let's say I start the year at 18.3 - play really great all year, and in the 'hcp tracking app' I see that as of next year, I'll be a hcp 15.2. But, during the year everything I play is off 18.3. That way, I'm competing to a set level, but only taking my 'profit' at the year's end.

Would that help? I'm still a bit in the dark as to why the WHS is terrible.

Issue I see with that one: You start the year 18.3, thus staying on 18.3 for the year. However, early season, you are clearly playing to a much lower handicap and continue that through the year. You might end up winning nearly every club competition if you really improve upon the previous year, and I think that would be demoralizing for every other competitor?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Would that help? I'm still a bit in the dark as to why the WHS is terrible.

I get some of the reasoning but I can't help but think a good chunk of the dislike is down to change and people, golfers in particular it seems, not liking change. The old system was not great, imo, but people were familiar with it and so put up with its foibles.

As has been said before, the vast majority of club golfers will not care or even be aware that some are this hostile.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I get some of the reasoning but I can't help but think a good chunk of the dislike is down to change and people, golfers in particular it seems, not liking change. The old system was not great, imo, but people were familiar with it and so put up with its foibles.

As has been said before, the vast majority of club golfers will not care or even be aware that some are this hostile.

Another good chunk is down to simply not adjusting one's thinking to the new system and fully adapting to it.

I faced a lot of derision on here a couple of years ago for saying this.
My main point was that handicaps are adjusted according to gross scores and not nett scores as they were in the previous system.
You play against the course with no handicap and your handicap is "what you played to" the average of your best 8 out of 20 gross scores. Nett scores are not used.

But facing the course with "no handicap" was not something that the majority wanted to adopt to their thinking.
Odd.
Your golf score is your gross score whether you like it or not.

Nett scores and stableford points giving you a finishing position in a comp when playing with and against others which is what a handicap is for.