clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
No no Execution for the comittiee for 100% is about right
WHS and club competitions
- Thread starter Springveldt
- Start date
LincolnShep
Head Pro
The handicapping authorities have the data so they know what allowance is most equitable for any given field size. I think they're just sick of being at the end of all the moaning from people without data who believe they know better. This trial is "do what you want so that you get the complaints instead of us".
rulie
Head Pro
I thought Golf Australia did a very extensive data review about 7-8 years ago trying to minimize the variation of chances of winning between handicap "groupings". IIRC, the results of the analysis showed that about 93% was the "most equitable". The final reports should be available somewhere?
I think so, but most equitable depends on ones definition, and it was balancing wins with (Imprecise) high placings. That is what is prime in the discontent here with lower indexes - "we cant win". Which is partly true. What they seem to want is, an equal chance of winning. Not a lesser chance of winning, but a higher chance of a high placing, than higher indexes. Aus Golf was clear that its 93 was that 'most equitable' balance, not most equitable factor to win.
AussieKB
Well-known member
Yes us low markers are just chuffed to make the top 10......
rulie
Head Pro
I recall that the Golf Australia outcome was an equitable chance of being the winner. Again, IIRC, it also included match play results?
The "lower handicaps" are not correct when they say they "cannot win". As I've said before, a top ten finish includes the winner. Perhaps the use of "top ten" was an error on the communicator's messaging, but it doesn't mean they can't win.
The fact is that a bias towards lower handicappers was eliminated based on the data analysis, and the lower handicappers don't like that the bias was removed! Get over it, or clearly explain why should there be a bias to lower handicappers?
AussieKB
Well-known member
Don't need bias, just an even playing field......
I used to play in a two day 4BBB Open but have since given it up, I am a liability to my playing mate off a 2 handicap at that course, 47-50 points each day is way beyond me, and that is normal these days for Open 4BBB out here.
At another course 45 minutes away, there 4BBB Open on the Friday was won with 48 points, lowest for quite some time.
Another issue is that stroke (Medal) Open competitions are being changed to Stableford to attract high handicappers, which gives them even more chance to win. I play with a lot guys who receive 2 shots on a hole, I call them Barista's make mine a double, and they just go for everything knowing if they blob the hole they have more chance's to par a hole later with 2 shots on it for 4 points.
Very interested to see how Ireland go this year, if low markers start winning then I for-see high markers kicking up a stink, and since there is more of them, Ireland will most probably change back.
I used to play in a two day 4BBB Open but have since given it up, I am a liability to my playing mate off a 2 handicap at that course, 47-50 points each day is way beyond me, and that is normal these days for Open 4BBB out here.
At another course 45 minutes away, there 4BBB Open on the Friday was won with 48 points, lowest for quite some time.
Another issue is that stroke (Medal) Open competitions are being changed to Stableford to attract high handicappers, which gives them even more chance to win. I play with a lot guys who receive 2 shots on a hole, I call them Barista's make mine a double, and they just go for everything knowing if they blob the hole they have more chance's to par a hole later with 2 shots on it for 4 points.
Very interested to see how Ireland go this year, if low markers start winning then I for-see high markers kicking up a stink, and since there is more of them, Ireland will most probably change back.
wjemather
Well-known member
We established long ago that the recommended allowances are not being applied in the 4BBB opens you are playing in, making them void in any argument against the system and equity.
AussieKB
Well-known member
We are talking about the WORLD HS are we not ? I keep getting told it is the same the World over.
wjemather
Well-known member
What you have actually been told is that the system is one; and like most systems, it has options relating to application in certain areas - allowances being one.
If you don't like your allowances in 4BBB (which you shouldn't) - take it up with the people running the competitions who are failing to apply the guidance.
C7usk
Well-known member
Swango1980
Well-known member
Is the PCC different for each round?Mate had a score differential that was not the same, even though he got exact same score off exact same tees..
Then checked mine and noted I had the same...
Is this common? The only thing we can think of is an automatic pcc adjustment...
C7usk
Well-known member
We haven't been told there was any PCC for any of the days..
2 were in sat sweep.
1 was just a random Tues.
90 score diff 16.6
89 score diff 16.6
89 score diff 15.7
CR 71.5, Slope 126 off white tees for all rounds..
I'll ask the pro at the weekend..
Curious if anyone else had noted similar conflicting scores.. Wouldn't have noted it if wasn't for my PP noticing his..
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Just click on the score on that screen above and it tells you in the top right corner if there was a PCC adjustment or not. Based on those numbers it seems likely that either the middle one (89 16.6) had a PCC of -1, or the other two had a PCC of 1. (unless I have that backwards)
C7usk
Well-known member
Top man Orikoru.
.. Amateur hour here.. I haven't even seen that bit before... Yes looks like PCC.
Attachments
Springveldt
Well-known member
Must have missed it earlier in the thread, what are the differences in the 4BBB allowances between the UK and Australia?
Whenever I'm playing in a 4BBB I'll say to my partner if we want any chance of winning we will need 46 points or more. Think I've only played in 1 over the last 5 years were the winner was less than 46 and it was very windy that day with rock hard greens.
wjemather
Well-known member
The WHS recommendation of 85% for 4BBB stroke play is universal. In GB it is mandatory (Ireland are piloting variable allowances). In Australia, we have been told on here that the recommendation is ignored and they just use their Daily Handicaps (i.e. 93%).
The same could be said pre-WHS. We've seen no difference between pre- and post- WHS winning scores in our 4BBB board comps (before || after):
Comp1 (members only): 44, 45, 47 || 45, 46, 42, 47
Comp2 (members & limited guests): 49, 45, 46, 48 || 45, 49, 46, 46
D-S
Well-known member
I was just checking what the pre WHS allowance was - I thought it was 75% but in fact it changed to 90% in 2015. I came across this explanation of the move from 75 to 90%. I thought the bit I've highlighted in bold was interesting.
Many have asked – why 90%? The only explanation I can pass on is that provided to the Roadshow.
- Since the ¾ allowance was introduced in 2008, the CONGU Handicap Research Group have been investigating all options to find the best solution.
- Over the subsequent three years research was carried out using men’s and ladies singles scores combined as theoretical 4BBB pairings using full, 7/8 and 3/4 allowances. – The results indicated that 3/4 was too harsh and full was too generous.
- Further research was carried out to look at the impact that 7/8 and 90% would have on the top 4 leader board positions, 90% allowance was found to produce the most equitable results.
- In 2015 analysis of data from actual 4BBB events in England was used to test the potential change to 90%, this actual score data confirmed the theoretical and simulation analyses - that a change to a 90% allowance would have negligible impact on the leader boards.
- The findings included the observation that a high percentage of the top 10 teams were Cat 1 & Cat 2 players; that the top 4 teams typically remained in the top 4 positions with occasional shuffling of position; that 8 out of the top 10 teams remained in the top 10.
- The change to 90% stroke allowance would not have a great impact who wins competitions, however it is hoped that the medium and high handicap players will be encouraged to participate in such competitions more often.
Orikoru
Tour Winner
Can someone please edit the title now, this has gone on long enough. 
AussieKB
Well-known member
We had a competition that was Par/Bogey Plus held recently, I did mention to the Captain that I thought you could not be handicapped in this type of Competition.
At the conclusion of the Event it was discovered that the Golf Australia Handicap System could not process it.
The following day the Club changed the Competition to Par/Bogey and processed the scores for handicap purposes, the winner went from plus 8 to plus 5 and other
scores were changed as well (mine did not change)
Is this valid ? can you play a competition and they change the format after everyone has finished.
At the conclusion of the Event it was discovered that the Golf Australia Handicap System could not process it.
The following day the Club changed the Competition to Par/Bogey and processed the scores for handicap purposes, the winner went from plus 8 to plus 5 and other
scores were changed as well (mine did not change)
Is this valid ? can you play a competition and they change the format after everyone has finished.
