WHS and club competitions

[wjemather]

The EG person who penned the response actually sits on the GB&I Technical Committee who were the ones who apparently recommended the move.
He is now claiming it is a trial and no changes to discuss, although the article quotes a GB&I Board member who clearly states that it will be implemented in 2026 by all the home nations. How this wasn’t even hinted at or downplayed or mentioned in passing inthe workshop led by the respondent is beyond me.
Really poor communication.

I don't see that there is any doubt that it is a trial/pilot.
Surely a GB implementation in 2026 is dependent on successful trial/pilot in I, and the comms we have seen go out to clubs isn't laying a solid foundation for that to happen.

 

[D-S]

I don't see that there is any doubt that it is a trial/pilot.
Surely a GB implementation in 2026 is dependent on successful trial/pilot in I, and the comms we have seen go out to clubs isn't laying a solid foundation for that to happen.

I agree that it is a trial, but it is clearly stated that it will be implemented in 2026.
This is therefore not a try and see if it works, then analyse the data then decide if they want to do something or maintain the status quo. There is an implementation date.
If it is just a trial/pilot why have an implementation date?

As for the comms, from EG it is non existent, apart from a curt Facebook post which was immediately questioned as it seemed to contradict Golf GB&I quotes. In fact at their own roadshow it was clearly expressed that there were no changes proposed or actual before 2028.
Having this sort of information coming out via an NCG article isn’t very clever for any national authority in Golf GB&I.

 

[Dunesman]

Where is there mention of a trial ? (other than the EG post)

 

[nickjdavis]

I agree that it is a trial, but it is clearly stated that it will be implemented in 2026.
This is therefore not a try and see if it works, then analyse the data then decide if they want to do something or maintain the status quo. There is an implementation date.
If it is just a trial/pilot why have an implementation date?

As for the comms, from EG it is non existent, apart from a curt Facebook post which was immediately questioned as it seemed to contradict Golf GB&I quotes. In fact at their own roadshow it was clearly expressed that there were no changes proposed or actual before 2028.
Having this sort of information coming out via an NCG article isn’t very clever for any national authority in Golf GB&I.

Maybe it is clever wordplay.....no changes to the actual mechanics of "how a handicap index is calculated" and all associated with that... but that allows changes to how the index is actually used. So no changes anywhere in the Rules of Handicapping except for Appendix C...which isn't really about the Handicap but more about how many strokes you get depending on comp format.

Also the author of said article has published several prior articles that have a negative view of WHS....he could easily have simply missed out the words "once the Irish trial results have been analysed" to twist the slant of the article.

Maybe even the author was the victim of an editor with a big red marker. I know on occasion when I've written articles before for websites or magazines, there have been key passages removed in editing that resulted in a significant change of emphasis of what I've written. So much so that in one case I asked for my name to be disassociated with the article, because it said something completely different to what I'd intended.

 

[Backache]

Maybe it is clever wordplay.....no changes to the actual mechanics of "how a handicap index is calculated" and all associated with that... but that allows changes to how the index is actually used. So no changes anywhere in the Rules of Handicapping except for Appendix C...which isn't really about the Handicap but more about how many strokes you get depending on comp format.

I think the complaints about GE are that there communication has been very poor , Clever wordplay hardly exonerates them of that. It doesn't matter if what you said could be interpreted in a manner that is not a lie if everyone you are communicating with believes it meant something else.

 

[Dunesman]

I think the complaints about GE are that there communication has been very poor , Clever wordplay hardly exonerates them of that. It doesn't matter if what you said could be interpreted in a manner that is not a lie if everyone you are communicating with believes it meant something else.

If people are playing off different handicaps, due to any change, then there has been a change to 'WHS' as people will reasonably understand it. Claiming that, no, WHS has not changed, only to a local interpretation or facility allowed withing the WHS definition, then, that is disingenuous, and misleading.

 

[D-S]

Maybe it is clever wordplay.....no changes to the actual mechanics of "how a handicap index is calculated" and all associated with that... but that allows changes to how the index is actually used. So no changes anywhere in the Rules of Handicapping except for Appendix C...which isn't really about the Handicap but more about how many strokes you get depending on comp format.

Also the author of said article has published several prior articles that have a negative view of WHS....he could easily have simply missed out the words "once the Irish trial results have been analysed" to twist the slant of the article.

Maybe even the author was the victim of an editor with a big red marker. I know on occasion when I've written articles before for websites or magazines, there have been key passages removed in editing that resulted in a significant change of emphasis of what I've written. So much so that in one case I asked for my name to be disassociated with the article, because it said something completely different to what I'd intended.

Given that the audience was comprised of people who run competitions at clubs and those who advise them on issues regarding competitions, then this news was probably of greater import to them than some random group of golf officials and also other points on the agenda. Hiding behind wording nuances, if that is what they were doing, doesn’t cast them in a good light and hardly helps with building an open trusting relationship with volunteers without whom they couldn’t function.

 

[Rlburnside]

Given that the audience was comprised of people who run competitions at clubs and those who advise them on issues regarding competitions, then this news was probably of greater import to them than some random group of golf officials and also other points on the agenda. Hiding behind wording nuances, if that is what they were doing, doesn’t cast them in a good light and hardly helps with building an open trusting relationship with volunteers without whom they couldn’t function.

This must be so frustrating for you and others who take the time to attend these seminars and to be now confused with what you’ve been told.

What a terrible way to handle communication to what’s seen by so many as a flawed system.

 

[Dunesman]

Interesting number I hadnt heard before in NCG's podcast, that the 'hidden' multiplier behind the calculation of Congu handicaps was 0.96. Which would give some juatification in isolation that 0.95 for WHS was a reasonable value. Indication that it is the fundamental skewing of lower handicaps lower, higher handicaps higher, and the greater volatility of WHS indexes compared to WHS, that is the real source of problem of lower handicappers lack of competitiveness ?

 

[D-S]

My concern is that if/when clubs choose their own allowances for competitions, all that is going to change is the section of the club that makes the complaints; just a different entitled group will consider themselves disadvantaged.
Also one of the largest initial areas of complaint was from higher handicappers ‘losing shots’ due to 95% in singles. Don’t be too surprised if some clubs just move to 100% for ‘ease’.
As a someone Senior in EG handicapping management recently said ‘ be careful what you wish for’.

 

[wjemather]

My concern is that if/when clubs choose their own allowances for competitions, all that is going to change is the section of the club that makes the complaints; just a different entitled group will consider themselves disadvantaged.
Also one of the largest initial areas of complaint was from higher handicappers ‘losing shots’ due to 95% in singles. Don’t be too surprised if some clubs just move to 100% for ‘ease’.
As a someone Senior in EG handicapping management recently said ‘ be careful what you wish for’.

Exactly this. Given the freedom, this is certainly what our senior and ladies sections would do - and in more formats than just individual stroke play.

 

[Orikoru]

My concern is that if/when clubs choose their own allowances for competitions, all that is going to change is the section of the club that makes the complaints; just a different entitled group will consider themselves disadvantaged.
Also one of the largest initial areas of complaint was from higher handicappers ‘losing shots’ due to 95% in singles. Don’t be too surprised if some clubs just move to 100% for ‘ease’.
As a someone Senior in EG handicapping management recently said ‘ be careful what you wish for’.

Sounds good to me. Even in perfect conditions last weekend, still only one player beat his handicap in the Stableford comp with 38.

 

[AussieKB]

How long ago did you get 7/8ths for stableford and 3/4 for bogey.

 

[wjemather]

How long ago did you get 7/8ths for stableford and 3/4 for bogey.

CONGU recommended allowances were changed over 40 years ago, but they didn't become mandatory until 2008 in England (1995 in Ireland).

 

[Dunesman]

CONGU recommended allowances were changed over 40 years ago, but they didn't become mandatory until 2008 in England (1995 in Ireland).

Yikes. Hopefully we arent 13 years behind Ireland on implementing the latest WHS allowance changes there.

 

[Dunesman]

My concern is that if/when clubs choose their own allowances for competitions, all that is going to change is the section of the club that makes the complaints; just a different entitled group will consider themselves disadvantaged.
Also one of the largest initial areas of complaint was from higher handicappers ‘losing shots’ due to 95% in singles. Don’t be too surprised if some clubs just move to 100% for ‘ease’.
As a someone Senior in EG handicapping management recently said ‘ be careful what you wish for’.

Not is this gets us back somewhere towards fair overall.
WHS has plenty of UK data now. Has anything been published on the movement of handicaps post WHS ?

If the anecdotes that single figure went down a shot or two (certainly indications of that in our club), and twenty or so an above went up a shot or two (harder to say), then there is a good case that any larger field events should be going for the 85%. So broadly a three shot playing handicap reduction between a scratch and a 30HI. So not back to the bias favouring the scratch player, but a more even chance for all to win.

That they have jumped all the way to allowing 85%, and WHS must have had some solid data to include that it the first place too, GolfGB&I must have data showing that value has merit in some circumstances.

Maybe this was the root mistake here. They restricted the full implementation of WHS here on the basis that a fixed 95% was close to the old value, and would simplify implementation and the change impact. But didnt take into account that the 8 from 20 was going to widen the spread of handicaps, and so 95% was going to distort results too much for golfers to accept.

 

[D-S]

If it’s a free choice for clubs, 100% in Singles and 90% in 4BB are just as likely as 85% and 75% - i.e. heavily favouring the majority (higher handicappers)

One thing I have learnt is never to underestimate the bias of some Handicap Committees dependent in who’s running them and who is shouting loudest. Not giving them too much leeway in certain competitions one-off the checks and balances in the system. I have seen some quite unfair competitions set up by committees based on their own opinion, not facts.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[clubchamp98]

Not is this gets us back somewhere towards fair overall.
WHS has plenty of UK data now. Has anything been published on the movement of handicaps post WHS ?

If the anecdotes that single figure went down a shot or two (certainly indications of that in our club), and twenty or so an above went up a shot or two (harder to say), then there is a good case that any larger field events should be going for the 85%. So broadly a three shot playing handicap reduction between a scratch and a 30HI. So not back to the bias favouring the scratch player, but a more even chance for all to win.

That they have jumped all the way to allowing 85%, and WHS must have had some solid data to include that it the first place too, GolfGB&I must have data showing that value has merit in some circumstances.

Maybe this was the root mistake here. They restricted the full implementation of WHS here on the basis that a fixed 95% was close to the old value, and would simplify implementation and the change impact. But didnt take into account that the 8 from 20 was going to widen the spread of handicaps, and so 95% was going to distort results too much for golfers to accept.

Seems a lot of this system is very heavily weighted towards club comittiees.
They will then be blamed when golfers don’t like the format chosen for comps.
Can almost see it coming.!

 

[NearHull]

I chair our Competition and Handicap Committee, this move away from mandated allowances is going to be a nightmare of complaints when it becomes more widely known throughout the membership.

 

[Dunesman]

If it’s a free choice for clubs, 100% in Singles and 90% in 4BB are just as likely as 85% and 75% - i.e. heavily favouring the majority (higher handicappers)

One thing I have learnt is never to underestimate the bias of some Handicap Committees dependent in who’s running them and who is shouting loudest. Not giving them too much leeway in certain competitions one-off the checks and balances in the system. I have seen some quite unfair competitions set up by committees based on their own opinion, not facts.

Be careful what you wish for.

Agree fully. Thats why, or maybe it will come following the tr8al in Ireland, that it isnt comming with at least stronger numerical guidance on which of the four options to use. More precision than just larger fields, etc. It needs some quantifying to number of entries, and probably handicap profile of tge field as well. Low men running things moght indeed tend toward 85, and vice versa. But probably with the 85, any lack of competitiveness for higher men will be less conspicuous and less felt. Nemerical advantage will still give a (maybe false) impression that they are winning their share.