What Would You Change About the WHS?

[IanMac]

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.

We'd already worked that out. Doesn't seem to stop you though. I think you are a classic keyboard warrior.

 

[IanMac]

'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.

Explain yourself please.

 

[Voyager EMH]

We'd already worked that out. Doesn't seem to stop you though. I think you are a classic keyboard warrior.

Aren't we all? You and me included.

 

[RichA]

We'd already worked that out. Doesn't seem to stop you though. I think you are a classic keyboard warrior.

Thank you. I know I'm a classic but not everyone agrees.
You don't read much outside of this thread you're obsessed with though, I think.

 

[IanMac]

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.

I'm glad you could be bothered to articulate that. I think something similar.

The whole system is based on an oversimplified statistical model that suits an average software engineer. No real understanding of the game.

 

[IanMac]

Thank you. I know I'm a classic but not everyone agrees.
You don't read much outside of this thread you're obsessed with though, I think.

No reason to.

 

[IanMac]

Aren't we all? You and me included.

Not really. I'm not going to start an argument with someone in a thread on a subject where I have little experience.

 

[RichA]

Not really. I'm not going to start an argument with someone in a thread on a subject where I have little experience.

It's a forum on the website of a golf magazine.
It is not the Court of Appeal or the United Nations.
Perspective innit.

 

[IanMac]

It's a forum on the website of a golf magazine.
It is not the Court of Appeal or the United Nations.
Perspective innit.

Where some members discuss takeaway food amongst other interesting topics...

 

[jim8flog]

If only there was a public forum where it could be discussed

and discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed

Too much rain at the moment in my opinion.

 

[jim8flog]

Casual golf mixed in with a 4BBB or team comp is not a common occurrence.

I'm in favour of facilitating all options for players, and discussed it with the club concerned; they considered enabling ISV submission but decided against it.

Where I play about half of the available tee slots are free to book when the Saturday monthly comp is a 4BBB.

 

[jim8flog]

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.

the increase to a maximum 54 handicap came in years before the WHS so cannot really be called a WHS problem.

 

[IanMac]

the increase to a maximum 54 handicap came in years before the WHS so cannot really be called a WHS problem.

What country are you talking about? It was 28 here in UK and Ire

 

[wjemather]

Explain yourself please.

I'm not sure what you're after, but "average best x of y" methodology has been used by many different systems throughout the history of handicapping. I believe the old Australian system (on which UHS was based) was first used in the mid-1970s.

Dean Knuth has a lot (and I mean a lot) of info on his website if you want to know more.

 

[Bdill93]

Where some members discuss takeaway food amongst other interesting topics...

Woah woah back off my takeaway thread!

Golfers gotta eat!!!!

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

Not really. I'm not going to start an argument with someone in a thread on a subject where I have little experience.

You are giving it a good go though

 

[Bdill93]

You are giving it a good go though

Eh up, hello WHS, pleasure to meet you

 

[wjemather]

What country are you talking about? It was 28 here in UK and Ire

The CONGU UHS maximum handicap increased to 54.0 in 2019, having previously been introduced in 2016 as club and disability handicaps.

 

[IanMac]

I'm not sure what you're after, but "average best x of y" methodology has been used by many different systems throughout the history of handicapping. I believe the old Australian system (on which UHS was based) was first used in the mid-1970s.

Dean Knuth has a lot (and I mean a lot) of info on his website if you want to know more.

UHS never used it. Has an average best x of y been used in UK and Ire?

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

What would I change?

Playing handicap. Use the Oz system but make 90% or 85%
Use an average of all last 20 rounds

Ban anyone who
~ compares their WHS index to their UHS handicap
~ can’t separate the misuse of technology from the handicap system
~ anyone who doesn’t understand the raise in handicap limits isn’t a WHS thing
~ anyone who wants to make it more complicated by separating GP and comp scores
~ anyone who uses dought rather than doubt
~ anyone who calls themselves a stats geek that isn’t backing up their opinions with some proper statistical analysis.

Easy. And home in time for tea and medals