WHS and club competitions

[clubchamp98]

I don't think it would be wise for them to interact though. There are clearly people who will be unrelenting in their criticism and will be completely unobjective in any debate or discussion. There would be a risk of any representative being dragged into an immature debate that is going nowhere. You'd have an uneducated golfer trying to question the credibility of somebody whose profession is golf.

And, it is probably a stretch to think any of our individual opinions is actually worth anything. Can't even agree with each other most of the time. Easiest for EG to silently watch on, get an idea of the most controversial golf topics, how many golfers are contributing to the discussion, etc

Agree it’s like a rep from Man Utd being on the footy thread.

But they would get a flavour of what golfers think from all over the country.

But this sounds like they have been listening.

 

[D-S]

If this trial by GI does indeed show better equity is achieved via clubs choosing from a menu of handicap allowances from 95 to 85% in singles and an even wider choice from 90 to 75% in 4BB, I wonder if similar choices will be available from the equally popular (particularly in Opens) formats such as 2 from 3 or 2 from 4 and Texas Scrambles.
They seem to have opened a bit of a Pandora's Box here, which will skew results dependent on that very variable thing, the make up and opinions of Handicap committees, who are extremely variable already in terms of performance.
I wonder how many million data points have been gathered on this move?

 

[Swango1980]

If clubs have a choice in selecting their own Allowance, I see 3 things happening:

• Lots of clubs doing nothing, and just using the defaults (which I will assume will be the same as they are now). People at these clubs may simply not know any better that the changes can be made, or not feel comfortable enough which allowance to use and they may not have members crying out for change, so will just leave it.
• Clubs that will implement changes. But, simply stick it to the lowest possible setting, because it is always the low handicappers crying out when high handicappers win, and not the other way round.
• Clubs that will try and objectively set the allowance, based on field size for example.

I suspect the last group of clubs, however, will be very small. You'd need a very informed Committee, who will be committed to set allowances based on very defined parameters and not be swayed by opinionated golfers who demand something different is done. Thus, if clubs do change this factor, I think most will just put it on the lowest setting wherever possible.

 

[AussieKB]

As Sergeant Schulz would say 'I know nothing'

 

[wjemather]

If clubs have a choice in selecting their own Allowance, I see 3 things happening:

• Lots of clubs doing nothing, and just using the defaults (which I will assume will be the same as they are now). People at these clubs may simply not know any better that the changes can be made, or not feel comfortable enough which allowance to use and they may not have members crying out for change, so will just leave it.
• Clubs that will implement changes. But, simply stick it to the lowest possible setting, because it is always the low handicappers crying out when high handicappers win, and not the other way round.
• Clubs that will try and objectively set the allowance, based on field size for example.

I suspect the last group of clubs, however, will be very small. You'd need a very informed Committee, who will be committed to set allowances based on very defined parameters and not be swayed by opinionated golfers who demand something different is done. Thus, if clubs do change this factor, I think most will just put it on the lowest setting wherever possible.

If that does happen, and the lowest 5% of golfers likely end up winning >>10% of the time, we should probably expect a (justifiable) outcry from mid-higher handicappers having seen their chances reduced severely, and maybe for them to walk away from competitions.

 

[D-S]

If clubs have a choice in selecting their own Allowance, I see 3 things happening:

• Lots of clubs doing nothing, and just using the defaults (which I will assume will be the same as they are now). People at these clubs may simply not know any better that the changes can be made, or not feel comfortable enough which allowance to use and they may not have members crying out for change, so will just leave it.
• Clubs that will implement changes. But, simply stick it to the lowest possible setting, because it is always the low handicappers crying out when high handicappers win, and not the other way round.
• Clubs that will try and objectively set the allowance, based on field size for example.

I suspect the last group of clubs, however, will be very small. You'd need a very informed Committee, who will be committed to set allowances based on very defined parameters and not be swayed by opinionated golfers who demand something different is done. Thus, if clubs do change this factor, I think most will just put it on the lowest setting wherever possible.

Interesting to see the effect on entries , if they published rules in advance, of a 4BB Open set at 90% or 75%. That's a 3 shot difference in the comp for a 20 CH.

 

[Backache]

Better players more likely to win a sporting contest, heaven forfend we can't have that.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Better players more likely to win a sporting contest, heaven forfend we can't have that.

Make the comps scratch then, not handicap. Then the best player really does win. If it is a h/c comp then everyone on the first tee has to have a genuine chance to win. The better players are still more likely to win as they are more consistent.

The balance has to be right, not loaded one way or the other.

 

[wjemather]

Make the comps scratch then, not handicap. Then the best player really does win. If it is a h/c comp then everyone on the first tee has to have a genuine chance to win. The better players are still more likely to win as they are more consistent.

The balance has to be right, not loaded one way or the other.

Unfortunately in larger fields with a wide range of handicaps it's a case of picking your poison - by balancing the chance of winning, the chance of a top 10 finish is greatly reduced for higher handicappers; balance the chance of a top 10 and the low handicappers have a greatly reduced chance of winning.

 

[Backache]

Make the comps scratch then, not handicap. Then the best player really does win. If it is a h/c comp then everyone on the first tee has to have a genuine chance to win. The better players are still more likely to win as they are more consistent.

The balance has to be right, not loaded one way or the other.

As things stand under WHS the better player is less likely to win particularly with any significant field size and playing Stableford , the greater variance in scoring means the higher handicappers are more likely to win.

No system can be prefect but as a sporting event I would personally rather see any advantage going to the better player as it encourages improvement and sporting integrity.

On the forum we have been told ad nauseum that the answer is to have divisions, this is in my view actually a much better argument for having the overall winner somewhat favouring the better golfer whilst still maintaining interest for all in their own division but having the name on the trophy wall going to a good golfer or someone having a genuinely exceptional day.

No one can know in advance what the turnout is going to be for a competition so you cannot determine the best statistical model in advance of a tournament being played to play anyway.
What you can do is have different categories of tournament some of which somewhat favour slightly better players some of which may favour less good golfers and all of which the competitors can be notified in advance of what the handicapping fraction is going to be so they know and can decide accordingly.

Scratch competitions are great but they favour a very small fraction of the good golfers in a golf club the rest of whom are currently being disenfranchised. If used well a variable fraction model for different tournaments with divisions can provide opportunites for everyone.

 

[Swango1980]

If that does happen, and the lowest 5% of golfers likely end up winning >>10% of the time, we should probably expect a (justifiable) outcry from mid-higher handicappers having seen their chances reduced severely, and maybe for them to walk away from competitions.

Perhaps, but I think it would be a really good idea if the authorities worked closely with clubs, to collect a lot of data so that the impact can be measured. Rather then individual clubs giving their opinions as to what the impact may be.

I think there is generally a higher tolerance threshold of higher handicappers when lower handicappers win competitions ahead of them. You'll rarely hear a 30 handicapper kicking off a huge fuss that he was beaten by a scratch golfer on countback, and complaining he didn't get enough shots.

If the lowest 5% of golfers win more than 10% of the competitions, I don't think that would be noticeable to your average golfer? If they won over half of the competitions, then that would. I don't know where the threshold it, at which point higher handicappers start to realise the odds are much more against them. A lot of high handicappers may also have the goal to improve their overall game, get their handicap down. So, their ambition may be to get that lower handicap and increase their odds of winning comps as a result, rather than feel they should be entitled to have an equal chance to win comps before they've even improved their game.

 

[jim8flog]

Isn't it simply golf that is played with other people?

some of the guys I play with it is unsocial golf.

Two guys I know. who use a buggy. play their shots and they are gone.

 

[wjemather]

As things stand under WHS the better player is less likely to win particularly with any significant field size and playing Stableford , the greater variance in scoring means the higher handicappers are more likely to win.

No system can be prefect but as a sporting event I would personally rather see any advantage going to the better player as it encourages improvement and sporting integrity.

On the forum we have been told ad nauseum that the answer is to have divisions, this is in my view actually a much better argument for having the overall winner somewhat favouring the better golfer whilst still maintaining interest for all in their own division but having the name on the trophy wall going to a good golfer or someone having a genuinely exceptional day.

No one can know in advance what the turnout is going to be for a competition so you cannot determine the best statistical model in advance of a tournament being played to play anyway.
What you can do is have different categories of tournament some of which somewhat favour slightly better players some of which may favour less good golfers and all of which the competitors can be notified in advance of what the handicapping fraction is going to be so they know and can decide accordingly.

Scratch competitions are great but they favour a very small fraction of the good golfers in a golf club the rest of whom are currently being disenfranchised. If used well a variable fraction model for different tournaments with divisions can provide opportunites for everyone.

Organisers can set terms of competition that would achieve that without distorting the entire competition with dodgy allowances.

 

[jim8flog]

A couple of examples from Somerset to illustrate the point...
Burnham's gold tees are 73.7/127 and Wells white tees are 69.1/127. Burnham is significantly more difficult than Wells (4.6 strokes per the course ratings) but there is no difference in Slope.
Clevedon's yellow tees are 71.8/132. Burnham's golds are certainly more difficult (1.9 strokes per the course ratings), but Clevedon's slope is 5 higher.

I have played Burnham a lot with a lot of interclub matchplay
There is no difference in slope between their Purple (yellow) and our yellows.
Just a difference in course rating so 3 shots extra on CH compared to playing at Yeovil.

 

[wjemather]

Perhaps, but I think it would be a really good idea if the authorities worked closely with clubs, to collect a lot of data so that the impact can be measured. Rather then individual clubs giving their opinions as to what the impact may be.

I think there is generally a higher tolerance threshold of higher handicappers when lower handicappers win competitions ahead of them. You'll rarely hear a 30 handicapper kicking off a huge fuss that he was beaten by a scratch golfer on countback, and complaining he didn't get enough shots.

If the lowest 5% of golfers win more than 10% of the competitions, I don't think that would be noticeable to your average golfer? If they won over half of the competitions, then that would. I don't know where the threshold it, at which point higher handicappers start to realise the odds are much more against them. A lot of high handicappers may also have the goal to improve their overall game, get their handicap down. So, their ambition may be to get that lower handicap and increase their odds of winning comps as a result, rather than feel they should be entitled to have an equal chance to win comps before they've even improved their game.

They already have the data. There should be an easy to follow framework for allowances based on field size and handicap composition, so it's not left in the hands of people relying on hunches and guesswork, and vulnerable to pressure from a section of the membership.

As soon as you start taking an extra 3 strokes off the 30-handicappper's Course Handicap to mitigate potential exceptional scores, when they're generally nowhere near winning as it is, there is likely to be a fuss. Plenty of our seniors make a fuss every month about having to play from 85% in their 2 from 3 bowmakers - if you applied 85% in individual stroke play, they simply wouldn't enter and you'd never hear the end of it.

 

[D-S]

They already have the data. There should be an easy to follow framework for allowances based on field size and handicap composition, so it's not left in the hands of people relying on hunches and guesswork, and vulnerable to pressure from a section of the membership.

As soon as you start taking an extra 3 strokes off the 30-handicappper's Course Handicap to mitigate potential exceptional scores, when they're generally nowhere near winning as it is, there is likely to be a fuss. Plenty of our seniors make a fuss every month about having to play from 85% in their 2 from 3 bowmakers - if you applied 85% in individual stroke play, they simply wouldn't enter and you'd never hear the end of it.

We have quite a big Seniors Pairs 4BB Open, at 90% allowance I would think twice about entering however at 75% a lot of others would think twice about entering especially if the others they had played in recently were 90%. I can see quite a bit of bickering about this.
I’m keen to see what the authorities stance on Texas Scramble is going to be.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

We have quite a big Seniors Pairs 4BB Open, at 90% allowance I would think twice about entering however at 75% a lot of others would think twice about entering especially if the others they had played in recently were 90%. I can see quite a bit of bickering about this.
I’m keen to see what the authorities stance on Texas Scramble is going to be.

It's very good of Golf Ireland to be the guinea pigs on this. Surely the other bodies will be watching them carefully, see the fallout and hopefully tweak it accordingly.

 

[clubchamp98]

Better players more likely to win a sporting contest, heaven forfend we can't have that.

Yes don’t seem that bothered atm that the low men are not winning and it’s meant to be like that.!
But well done for coming fifth.

But disadvantage middle cappers and it’s “justifiable”
Double standards or what.

 

[Backache]

Organisers can set terms of competition that would achieve that without distorting the entire competition with dodgy allowances.

Dodgy is just a perjorative adjective . If the intention is set out and explained, there is nothing dodgy about it.
If you want to see dodgy see the possibilities for handicap manipulation when GP scores can be used to maintain them.

 

[IanMcC]

Ironically, when Handicap Committees are given freedom to move the Playing Handicap percentage , I reckon most will move them all to 100% of Course Handicap, giving them an easier life, and giving the lower handicappers more fuel to moan.