What Would You Change About the WHS?

[wjemather]

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

UHS was always step/ratchet system.
I don't remember all the details of the older systems - would have to look it up.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

UHS was always step/ratchet system.
I don't remember all the details of the older systems - would have to look it up.

So when you said 'well tried and tested' you were possibly a little misleading.

 

[rulefan]

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 seem to remember seeing something by Dean Knuth (the 'inventor') acknowledging that was a problem. I have never seen an alternative or adjustment proposed.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

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.

Dean writes, on his website, that he's not a fan of the WHS. His reasons are different to mine in detail but basically he is saying it downgrades the USGA system from their previous system and lists the reasons he sees. We, at least me anyway, are saying it downgrades from our UHS albeit for different reasons.

We have, as a result, a one size that fits nobody.

Surely the compromise is to use the part that is ok, i.e. the slope stuff as that is standard scratch equivalent, and use whatever algorithm makes the most sense in each geographical area to calculate HI and course handicap? World portability is based on a slope rating being available for a course. Your score will go back to your jurisdiction anyway for HI calculation. I know someone will argue that someone's UK and I HI might have been different if they played in US or Aus but that's because each area plays a slightly different brand of club golf in different conditions. Horses for courses as they say.

 

[wjemather]

So when you said 'well tried and tested' you were possibly a little misleading.

Not at all. It's a tried and tested methodology that has been in use in several jurisdictions for decades, and predates the ratchet system.
You didn't specify any geographical restrictions for it's use, if that's was your intention.

 

[Voyager EMH]

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

Some excellent points/observations.

But grammar or spelling policing is a touchy subject on here. Don't doubt it.

And I've just gone from 4.6 to 7.4 thanks to your recommendation. But only because I'm a geek with all his score differentials on a spreadsheet.

Thanks very much and welcome.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Not at all. It's a tried and tested methodology that has been in use in several jurisdictions for decades, and predates the ratchet system.
You didn't specify any geographical restrictions for it's use, if that's was your intention.

Pedant. You know full well I am critical of WHS in the context of GB&I club golf.

 

[wjemather]

Dean writes, on his website, that he's not a fan of the WHS. His reasons are different to mine in detail but basically he is saying it downgrades the USGA system from their previous system and lists the reasons he sees. We, at least me anyway, are saying it downgrades from our UHS albeit for different reasons.

We have, as a result, a one size that fits nobody.

Surely the compromise is to use the part that is ok, i.e. the slope stuff as that is standard scratch equivalent, and use whatever algorithm makes the most sense in each geographical area to calculate HI and course handicap? World portability is based on a slope rating being available for a course. Your score will go back to your jurisdiction anyway for HI calculation. I know someone will argue that someone's UK and I HI might have been different if they played in US or Aus but that's because each area plays a slightly different brand of club golf in different conditions. Horses for courses as they say.

We've discussed Knuth's comments previously in another thread. Essentially, he doesn't agree with the inclusion of par in the CH calculation. He isn't the most impartial commentator, and his arguments are contradictory and/or flawed in places.

 

[Swango1980]

Some excellent points/observations.

But grammar or spelling policing is a touchy subject on here. Don't doubt it.

And I've just gone from 4.6 to 7.4 thanks to your recommendation. But only because I'm a geek with all his score differentials on a spreadsheet.

Thanks very much and welcome.

If Index was simply the average of your last 20:

My Index would go from 9.5 to 12.3. CH off whites would go from 12 to 16
Lowest Handicap Friend on MyEG would go from 2.1 to 4.3. CH off whites would go from 3 to 6
Highest Handicap Friend on MyEG would go from 29 to 38

So, the highest handicapper on that list shot 45 points in his best round of the last 20. Had his handicap been based on an overall average of all 20 scores, he's have scored 54 points. I know I get 4 extra shots and the low guy 3 extra shots, but I think we'd still struggle to get 54 points

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Dean writes, on his website, that he's not a fan of the WHS. His reasons are different to mine in detail but basically he is saying it downgrades the USGA system from their previous system and lists the reasons he sees. We, at least me anyway, are saying it downgrades from our UHS albeit for different reasons.

We have, as a result, a one size that fits nobody.

Surely the compromise is to use the part that is ok, i.e. the slope stuff as that is standard scratch equivalent, and use whatever algorithm makes the most sense in each geographical area to calculate HI and course handicap? World portability is based on a slope rating being available for a course. Your score will go back to your jurisdiction anyway for HI calculation. I know someone will argue that someone's UK and I HI might have been different if they played in US or Aus but that's because each area plays a slightly different brand of club golf in different conditions. Horses for courses as they say.

I've just read his article, and I was preparing myself as to why I've been wrong about the WHS all along, but,

1) He is a journalist to some degree, so wants to make a point for readers. 'Everything is ok nothing to see here' ain't going to be good journalism

2) Quote 'I offer this preamble to underscore that I have no grudge against the association. I strongly support its work in handicapping. And I firmly believe the introduction of the Course Rating and Slope Rating System globally as part of the new World Handicap System is a good thing'. This doesn't strike me as not a fan

3) His biggest moan is equating playing handicap to par, by using (Course Rating - Par) in the calculation, Then stating reasons that completely contradict his reasoning, he states 'Par is arbitrary.. but calculating a handicap around a less reliable measure of difficulty inherently makes for a less equitable system ', he can't even see this is all the more reason to include Course Rating in the equation.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

The first thing I'd change about the NHS is to expand it to include America.

Oh wait. Wrong acronym. Sorry.

 

[jim8flog]

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

UK

It came in 2018

Initially it was limited to a club handicap* (which came in before then) but then became an across the board rule
* Clubs could choose how to treat the players with regard to comps. We went with could enter comps without paying a fee but could not win any prizes.

 

[Dunesman]

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.

That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Why blow up a system, handicapped golf, tbat has served the game well for centuries, because our authorities hamessed up royally ? The above would kill competition golf. Or, I couldnt see it get off the ground or accepted at all. Even current flavour WHS works better than that.

Just level the playing field please, clever mathematicians and stattos, by whatever means necessary, and win back the disaffected golfers and restore confidence in handicap club golf in the UK.

 

[RichA]

That would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Why blow up a system, handicapped golf, tbat has served the game well for centuries, because our authorities hamessed up royally ? The above would kill competition golf. Or, I couldnt see it get off the ground or accepted at all. Even current flavour WHS works better than that.

Just level the playing field please, clever mathematicians and stattos, by whatever means necessary, and win back the disaffected golfers and restore confidence in handicap club golf in the UK.

I wasn't suggesting it was a perfect salve to everything that ails golf handicapping.
Just throwing an idea into the thread rather than adding more negativity.
I wondered if knowledge of ones division within the pyramid and only directly competing with ones peers might improve cohesion and encourage improvement to attain promotion rather than seeking to "beat" golfers whom one doesn't really have the ability to claim victory over. That appears to me to be the gripe of many when defeated in a comp by a golfer whose gross score was higher than their own.

 

[WorldHandicapSystem]

Some excellent points/observations.



And I've just gone from 4.6 to 7.4 thanks to your recommendation. But only because I'm a geek with all his score differentials on a spreadsheet.

Figure out the multiplayer to make it sensible. Or the last 10 scores, whatever. Just make every round count.
I’m sure some would crumble under the pressure, but they would get used to it.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Figure out the multiplayer to make it sensible. Or the last 10 scores, whatever. Just make every round count.
I’m sure some would crumble under the pressure, but they would get used to it.

Are you and RichA the same person?

 

[RichA]

I can barely maintain one identity.

 

[Boabie]

Ok...so we've got lots of threads moaning and displaying lots of angst about what is wrong with WHS...but in amongst the moaning there is very little being suggested as to how to improve things.

So what suggestions would you make to improve what we've got and resolve the issues that you perceive exist? (Scrap the entire thing and go back to the old system is not a valid response....even the most ardent WHS haters should concede that this wont happen)

Here's a few of my thoughts of things that might be possible and might ameliorate the issues that some seem to be experiencing. I'm not necessarily in favour of any/all of these (except perhaps the frequency of GP scores)...I'm just putting ideas out for discussion...

1. Limit GP cards to 1 per week. This would reduce the ability of manipulators to quickly "clear" their recent handicap record.
2. Change the handicap index calculation to be the average of the best 6 from 20....looking at records of players at my club this would mean that mid single figure guys might lose around 0.3 off their index, whereas players off around 28 might lose 1.3 shots or so. Its not much...but its a little bit.
3. Strengthening of the soft cap from 3 to 2 and the hard cap from 5 to 4....would restrict the rate at which indexes could rise. (Incidentally, at my club we have 37 players with soft caps in effect and 2 players with hard caps in effect...8.5% of the total membership)
4. Base the low index on the low point in the last 18 months, not 12... this action would put further curbs on the ability of an index to rise quickly.
5. Maybe change the allowance for an individual strokeplay comp from 95% to...90%....I think going lower than 90% would possibly be excessive....85% would mean a 28 handicapper would only get 24 shots...couple this with any of the above actions that are already limiting the ability of an index to rise, and I suspect higher handicappers might rise up and march on Woodhall Spa (or wherever your National Union might be based)....after all, there are far more of them than there are low guys who are currently feeling inconvenienced.

So folks....here is your chance to take a deep breath and be constructive...how do the authorities improve things (if indeed they need improving)?

WHS is wonderful and Dean Knuth is to be thanked for it's design, providing those to whom it applies play the game with the integrity it deserves. The introduction of the WHS gave me reason to look in to how par's are made and the function of stroke index's. This is due to having a WHS hcp, a playing hcp 3 shots less and a competition hcp at 95% of one of these. The 1st hole at my home club is a downhill, par 5, 480yds at it's max. It should be a par 4, that's not to say I can achieve a 4 (or even a 5) but I'm not an average scratch golfer on which par's are set. Stroke Index was designed for match play where the Hcp difference provided an even distribution of shots to be given or received. With the most difficult half (front 9 or back 9) to be allocated the odd index numbers. Why the R&A don't specify this is beyond me.

 

[Boabie]

1. Get rid of the Scramble Allowances, unless they can do something that is fair (which is unlikely, as there are so many variants of Scramble). Just let clubs sort out the Team Handicap as they see fit, give the Committees the responsibility
2. Once 3 scores are submitted for initial handicap, add bigger reductions the higher the final Score Diff is. Reduce those reductions the more cards the player submits, up until they have 20 on their record. That way, you won't have people submitting 3 cards, playing off about 30 or 40 because their first 3 rounds were rubbish, including their best one, and then winning comps because they improve quickly and we find out they are really a 15-20 handicapper. I find the current system creates bigger issues where you get a lot of beginner golfers, like my last club which is cheap. Winning scores were often ridiculous, as one of the newbies would often go out and shoot high 40's in Stabo. If a player is going to get a big juicy handicap because they are poor, fine. But let them submit 20 scores to fully prove they are that bad.
3. Embed the 95% playing allowance into the final Playing Handicap. So, all you need to do is check handicap against Index, and then that is it. Like the Australians do. If there are any other formats that require further reductions, like 4BBB, then players can do the whole 90% thing like they used to. Means it is less confusing for many golfers in singles play, no longer having to apply 95%, or wondering why 95% is applied, yet they don't apply it when they play socially.
4. From an Admin point of view, not sure as I'm no longer a handicap sec. So, they may already have some good tools at their disposal. But, stats like comparing handicaps if GP scores were just used compared to handicaps if Comp scores were just used would be useful. This might help highlight golfers who are using GP scores to increase handicap, or low handicappers who are doing the opposite?

Golf is a game of integrity your notes make ne think your club lacks that.
My home club does limit winning of prizes to having produced a number of cards within a reasonable time frame as you indicate in 2. We also have for every competition potential differing rules which state all that you mention in 3. Where individuals have a reputation they are observed and have been known to no longer be members of any club, had to move to another club or have their hcp withdrawn thus they can not enter any competition anywhere. Dean Knuth who designed the WHS has a website called popeofslope many interesting articles there including how to deal with sandbaggers and slow play.

 

[nickjdavis]

WHS is wonderful and Dean Knuth is to be thanked for it's design, providing those to whom it applies play the game with the integrity it deserves. The introduction of the WHS gave me reason to look in to how par's are made and the function of stroke index's. This is due to having a WHS hcp, a playing hcp 3 shots less and a competition hcp at 95% of one of these. The 1st hole at my home club is a downhill, par 5, 480yds at it's max. It should be a par 4, that's not to say I can achieve a 4 (or even a 5) but I'm not an average scratch golfer on which par's are set. Stroke Index was designed for match play where the Hcp difference provided an even distribution of shots to be given or received. With the most difficult half (front 9 or back 9) to be allocated the odd index numbers. Why the R&A don't specify this is beyond me.

errrr....the guidance around the use of SI's is very clearly laid out...albeit with the update that SI's are designed to accommodate both stroke and match play

Appendix E of the Rules of Handicapping is very clear...

It is recommended that a stroke index allocation be applied over 18-holes, split into six triads with each hole ranked on its playing difficulty relative to par. Authorized Associations can provide a report detailing the difficulty factor that has been assigned to each hole derived from the Course Rating System.The recommended methodology and procedures for determining a stroke index allocation within the six-triad structure, designed to accommodate both stroke play and match play formats, is as follows:

• Apply odd stroke index allocations over the front nine and even stroke index allocations over the back nine. If, however, the back nine is significantly more difficult than the front nine, as determined by the Course Rating, the even stroke index allocations can be switched to the front nine and the odd stroke index allocations to the back nine.
• Spread stroke index allocations evenly over the 18 holes so that players receiving strokes will have the opportunity to use a high proportion of these strokes before a match result has been decided.
• Apply the lowest stroke index hole (1 or 2) on each nine in the middle triad. If no hole within the middle triad is ranked within the lowest 6 holes relative to par, then it can be moved into an adjacent hole at the end of the first triad or the beginning of the third triad on each nine.
• Apply the second lowest stroke index hole (3 or 4) on each nine in either the first or third triad, unless the lowest stroke index hole has been allocated in that same triad.
• If possible, avoid low stroke indexes (6 or less) on consecutive holes.
• When a player receives more than 18 strokes, the same allocation order is used with stroke index 1 repeating as stroke index 19, 37 and 55, with all additional strokes going up sequentially.

So I'm not sure what your beef is....the R&A have done exactly what is beyond you.