What Would You Change About the WHS?

[Backache]

That’s fine if done for genuine reasons, but just look at what’s happening around the UK based on what’s posted here:

For Comps;
Max Handicap 18
Max Handicap 24
Max Handicap 32

Some believe it should max 28 regardless, some 36.

Club rules for entering Comps:
1 year membership
3 Club Comps in previous 12 months
No barriers.

Look at the restrictions Golf Zireland is bringing in

No GP cards
Some GP cards

That’s a small example. Some Clubs are virtually dictatorships and for some it is who shouts loudest, even if it is the minority.

Do you know the individual circumstances at each club? Some of them may be very reasonable some of them may not be I don't know . But I would certainly wish to know more about the circumstances before assuming that a single all encompassing diktat was better for every individual club.

 

[Swango1980]

That’s fine if done for genuine reasons, but just look at what’s happening around the UK based on what’s posted here:

For Comps;
Max Handicap 18
Max Handicap 24
Max Handicap 32

Some believe it should max 28 regardless, some 36.

Club rules for entering Comps:
1 year membership
3 Club Comps in previous 12 months
No barriers.

Look at the restrictions Golf Zireland is bringing in

No GP cards
Some GP cards

That’s a small example. Some Clubs are virtually dictatorships and for some it is who shouts loudest, even if it is the minority.

This is all to do with individual golf club policies though, nothing to do with whatever handicap system is in force. Clubs did stuff like this before WHS.

Some aspects of what clubs do is generally considered perfectly reasonable, like set handicap limits on certain competitions. England Golf are not going to slap a club on the wrist if they set such limits on a competition. There is also nothing wrong with setting certain entry criteria, such as submitting a certain number of rounds or comp rounds within a defined period. This was also recommended by England Golf, especially as they took the onus off the handicap system doing this with the competition and non competition handicap they used to have. It now allows clubs to set the criteria themselves, is more flexible.

Of course, there will be other things that clubs do that would be considered unreasonable. Not allowing GP scores is one. And we had a thread recently where is was discussed, and England Golf actually formally came out and advised against this. I've known other clubs that force members to submit good scores in their roll ups, but not bad ones. Again, completely incorrect and against the intent of the handicap system (pre or post WHS)

 

[PaulMdj]

Do you know the individual circumstances at each club? Some of them may be very reasonable some of them may not be I don't know . But I would certainly wish to know more about the circumstances before assuming that a single all encompassing diktat was better for every individual club.

I’m going on what people on here have posted, most of these restrictions changes to CoC were posted on here after WHS was introduced and Comps were being won with daft scores, that still continues in some Opens apparently.

One National Comp that certainly changed it’s rules is the Dail Mail Foursomes, they now have a max 18 PH after the National Comp was won by a pair off 35 & 1.

 

[Slab]

Whether its divisions, eligibility or handicap limits or something else, I think its appropriate that clubs/countries can tailor their comps played under the WHS umbrella, provided their motivation for doing so is sound
(clubs should also acknowledge that their comp could also be tweaked & move with the times to better fit WHS & the changing HC limits)

Golf is clearly somewhat different around the world (even within similar territories) and introducing an untouched worldwide handicap system must be a bit like trying to get every country to speak the same language or drive on same side of the road. Everyone’s gonna want to put their own tweaks on it

As long as bolt-on adaptations are done because its right and fair then its all good. If they’re done as some kind of sticking plaster believing WHS doesn’t work, then that wound is never gonna heal

 

[rulefan]

Should and do are very different things.
I see what your saying.

So guy is a member at two clubs
One has a 24 limit for comps.
One has no limit so he gets his 40 shots.

Is this a club problem or a WHS problem that he only gets 24 at the first one?

The use of the calculated CH is mandatory under WHS. This is only used to determine handicap adjustments.
However the PH is only recommended and clubs are free to set whatever limit they wish for prize winning or entry.

 

[PaulMdj]

Whether its divisions, eligibility or handicap limits or something else, I think its appropriate that clubs/countries can tailor their comps played under the WHS umbrella, provided their motivation for doing so is sound
(clubs should also acknowledge that their comp could also be tweaked & move with the times to better fit WHS & the changing HC limits)

Golf is clearly somewhat different around the world (even within similar territories) and introducing an untouched worldwide handicap system must be a bit like trying to get every country to speak the same language or drive on same side of the road. Everyone’s gonna want to put their own tweaks on it

As long as bolt-on adaptations are done because its right and fair then its all good. If they’re done as some kind of sticking plaster believing WHS doesn’t work, then that wound is never gonna heal

I agree, my initial reply on this thread was to say it’s not only low handicaps that have suffered because of WHS Implementation.

We were told WHS would be better, fairer etc and by enlarge it is, but what it has caused is Clubs to review their CoC and how they ran for years with max handicap 28, because people joining the sport and getting higher handicaps with no restrictions was causing issues, so a person who has taken up the game recently is now seeing more and more restrictions put on them when it comes to handicap comps.

I totally agree with Clubs managing their own comps, but, imo, reading this forum, quite a few have been caught out after the WHS introduction.

 

[rulefan]

I would like to add to my original post #37.
The ISVs should be instructed to tighten up their validation (as opposed to certification) process in respect of GP scores.

 

[Slab]

I agree, my initial reply on this thread was to say it’s not only low handicaps that have suffered because of WHS Implementation.

We were told WHS would be better, fairer etc and by enlarge it is, but what it has caused is Clubs to review their CoC and how they ran for years with max handicap 28, because people joining the sport and getting higher handicaps with no restrictions was causing issues, so a person who has taken up the game recently is now seeing more and more restrictions put on them when it comes to handicap comps.

I totally agree with Clubs managing their own comps, but, imo, reading this forum, quite a few have been caught out after the WHS introduction.

Yeah its easy to see how a low single figure would feel let down by WHS in a medium to large field comp and how a high handicapper capped at 24 might also feel let down when playing in the same comp & both paying the same entry fee. On the day (& maybe on this forum too) its likely neither will appreciate the others point of view but they’ve more in common than they think

 

[IanMac]

Maybe I'm repeating someone but I would think the most obvious fix is to use a tried and tested method for handicap index. So that would be UHS. The rest of the stuff isn't that far off the mark but trying to give everyone a form based handicap is a shambles.

 

[Dunesman]

Maybe I'm repeating someone but I would think the most obvious fix is to use a tried and tested method for handicap index. So that would be UHS. The rest of the stuff isn't that far off the mark but trying to give everyone a form based handicap is a shambles.

Such a dramatic change is not needed and the work to revert to it would be enormous.
A simple tweak is all that is needed to restore equal competition, at least up to 28HI (any issues relaying to higher HI are not WHS initiatives), and remove the temporary bonus shots, not reflective of their need for shots in a comoetition. This can be done by changing the caps, and their multipliers. Soft cap at 0.7 or 1.0 for example. Hard cap at 1.5. This would correct the systemic problem in WHS.

Then run it for a few years to assess and see whether outright abuse, in the form of fake scores and handicap manipulation is really a significant problem or not.

(My club seems to be going for a 90% or 85% multiplier for singles. The committee is doing some deeper analysis into results for the last few years to try to quantify this before our AGM to make a proposal. I think I prefer the cap solution better, but gather we dont seem to have scope to override the WHS itself as this would chabge handicap indexes. But that we can change the 95% as it only applies to the competition of the club. So a more practical solution in the short term at least.)

 

[RichA]

What about divisions for comps where those in each division effectively play each other off the minimum handcap?
0-10 play off scratch (playa division)
11-20 play off 10 (hacker division)
21-30 play off 20 (rabbit division)
Might be less of an incentive for those allegedly looking to "gain" shots if they gained no advantage and would be relegated to a less lofty division if they gained too many.

 

[IanMac]

I would get a golf minded change management expert out of retirement. Then use him to iron out the implementation anomalies that this has thrown up, even though it would have been less painful and cheaper to do it properly in the first place!

Or not do it at all even?

 

[Swango1980]

What about divisions for comps where those in each division effectively play each other off the minimum handcap?
0-10 play off scratch (playa division)
11-20 play off 10 (hacker division)
21-30 play off 20 (rabbit division)
Might be less of an incentive for those allegedly looking to "gain" shots if they gained no advantage and would be relegated to a less lofty division if they gained too many.

Well, if you were off 9/10, 19/20 or 29/30, there may be more incentive than ever to try and get your handicap up to 11, 21 or 31 (if there is a higher division again), That way, you would go from a division where it will be virtually impossible for you to win, to a division you have a very high chance to win.

And if you are off 11/12, 21/22, etc you may dop your best to avoid a cut that knocks you into the lower divsion

 

[wjemather]

Maybe I'm repeating someone but I would think the most obvious fix is to use a tried and tested method for handicap index. So that would be UHS. The rest of the stuff isn't that far off the mark but trying to give everyone a form based handicap is a shambles.

'Average best' handicap methodology has been in use well over 100 years (much longer than the old CONGU method). It's been well tried and tested.

 

[RichA]

Well, if you were off 9/10, 19/20 or 29/30, there may be more incentive than ever to try and get your handicap up to 11, 21 or 31 (if there is a higher division again), That way, you would go from a division where it will be virtually impossible for you to win, to a division you have a very high chance to win.

And if you are off 11/12, 21/22, etc you may dop your best to avoid a cut that knocks you into the lower divsion

I can only speak for myself but from a self-respect perspective I'd rather be competing in a higher division and losing than faking my way into a lower division to try and win a couple of quid.
It would give people within a division an incentive to actually improve - something the playas criticise hackers like me of failing to aspire to.

Edit: I think we're referring to higher and lower divisions oppositely. You mean as in HI; I mean as in a pyramid.

 

[Slab]

I can only speak for myself but from a self-respect perspective I'd rather be competing in a higher division and losing than faking my way into a lower division to try and win a couple of quid.
It would give people within a division an incentive to actually improve - something the playas criticise hackers like me of failing to aspire to.

Edit: I think we're referring to higher and lower divisions oppositely. You mean as in HI; I mean as in a pyramid.

Having self respect/integrity/morals etc actually makes you wholly unsuited to propose a handicap system

It does need someone with those qualities but who is also able to morph their mind into being a devious conniving sleekit cheating conspiratorial bandit

 

[Swango1980]

I can only speak for myself but from a self-respect perspective I'd rather be competing in a higher division and losing than faking my way into a lower division to try and win a couple of quid.
It would give people within a division an incentive to actually improve - something the playas criticise hackers like me of failing to aspire to.

Edit: I think we're referring to higher and lower divisions oppositely. You mean as in HI; I mean as in a pyramid.

Unfortunately, there are many golfers out there that have a different attitude.

More generally, I think most golfers want to go and play competitive golf and feel like they have a fair and equal chance to win as everyone else, which is perfectly fine. So, having divisions based on handicap, and then everyone playing off scratch, would put many people at a significant disadvantage. For example, I'm not sure how fun it would be for a 28/29 handicapper to compete in a division they have almost no chance to win? Are they proud to be in the so called "Rabbit Division", or hacked off they are uncompetitive?

We've also heard on another thread that a golfer was caught putting in fake scores at an away course to increase his handicap. Extreme example, but if there were golfers on a handicap close to putting them in the "worse" division, it would be more tempting for some to put in some bad scores, and put them in a division they can compete in. I think that would be much easier, than try and improve and get their Index from about 29-30 to 21-23ish just so they feel that they can start competing for wins.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to the odd isolated competition structure like this. It would be like a scratch club champs for the best players, a scratch comp for the mid handicap players and a scratch comp for the higher handicap players

 

[RichA]

Unfortunately, there are many golfers out there that have a different attitude.

More generally, I think most golfers want to go and play competitive golf and feel like they have a fair and equal chance to win as everyone else, which is perfectly fine. So, having divisions based on handicap, and then everyone playing off scratch, would put many people at a significant disadvantage. For example, I'm not sure how fun it would be for a 28/29 handicapper to compete in a division they have almost no chance to win? Are they proud to be in the so called "Rabbit Division", or hacked off they are uncompetitive?

We've also heard on another thread that a golfer was caught putting in fake scores at an away course to increase his handicap. Extreme example, but if there were golfers on a handicap close to putting them in the "worse" division, it would be more tempting for some to put in some bad scores, and put them in a division they can compete in. I think that would be much easier, than try and improve and get their Index from about 29-30 to 21-23ish just so they feel that they can start competing for wins.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to the odd isolated competition structure like this. It would be like a scratch club champs for the best players, a scratch comp for the mid handicap players and a scratch comp for the higher handicap players

I know it's flawed but my, admittedly limited, experience of club golf is that cheating isn't as endemic as others see it.
And I want to give those 4-9 handicappers something to complain about other than high-handicappers beating them all the time.

 

[Voyager EMH]

There is a criticism or fault with Slope Rating that I have.
I don't know how it could be effectively solved or even improved.

We have a notional scratch player and a notional bogey player and the relative expected scoring of these two.
Then we extend this lower than scratch and higher than bogey in a linear way.
But is this true-to-life?
I suspect that the "straight line graph" is not the best model for lower than scratch and higher than bogey, but these two extensions should be flattening out to form an S-curve (ogive)

I don't believe that the difference that the course "plays" between a +5 and a 2-handicapper is the same as between a 6 and 13, a 12 and a 19, and a 40 and a 47.
The 6-13 and the 12-19 might be on a straight line, but not the extremes, in my view.

But think about it? Can any course really be significantly different in the way it plays for a 42 and a 52 handicapper. I would think 113 slope is more likely a truer rating for my course than 132 for the difference between these two notional players. But we have to ascribe the 132 for the difference between each of them and the handicaps much lower down the scale.

And a +5 and a +1 handicapper? How can these two players really be effectively separated?
Surely their slope rating must be 113, or very close to it, on most courses. But that applies to the difference between them two. A higher Slope Rating between each of them and those much higher up would be appropriate.

But since the +5 and the +1 have had their Score Differentials calculated on Slope Ratings that are inappropriate for them, is this rectified in some way when their playing handicaps are calculated?

Although I maintain that Slope Rating is not linear at the extremes of the handicap range, the straight line model is a workable approximation.
Unless someone can come up with something better.

 

[Bdill93]

I’m going on what people on here have posted, most of these restrictions changes to CoC were posted on here after WHS was introduced and Comps were being won with daft scores, that still continues in some Opens apparently.

One National Comp that certainly changed it’s rules is the Dail Mail Foursomes, they now have a max 18 PH after the National Comp was won by a pair off 35 & 1.

Don't worry about the Daily Mail, me and my mate are planning to win that after qualifying to play for our club