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.

 

[IanMac]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[IanMac]

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.