WHS and club completions

[clubchamp98]

I think executing them for not being delighted maybe a bit harsh!

No no Execution for the comittiee for 100% is about right

 

[LincolnShep]

It's a very good point.

When golfers questioned the Texas Scramble allowances for example, we were basically told not to question it, because the allowances were based on the analysis thousands upon thousands of scores and so WHS know better (don't even mention the fact that Scrambles can be different, like Texas or Florida, min no. of drives, etc). So, if the Allowances used in Scrambles are meant to be watertight, you'd think allowances in singles play would be absolutely definitive. Even if the handicap is dependent on field size and distribution, if that is absolutely proven, then could the software not be used to work out the suitable allowance once all entrants are known (might be tricky in all day comps where field size is unknown to begin with, unless golfers just accept their Playing Handicap will not be finalised until the end of the comp).

Just allowing Committees to select the allowances isn't technically a trial in what is fairest (because the handicap authorities surely know this based on their data processing). It is a trial on what humans that run Committees prefer to do. Will many just opt for the lowest value (allow 75%, I bet a ton of Committees would just select that). Will many just stick to the default? Will any change it based on field size and handicap proportions? Will any stick it at 100% (I reckon that would be the most controversial of all)

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]

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?

 

[Dunesman]

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]

Yes us low markers are just chuffed to make the top 10......

 

[rulie]

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.

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]

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.

 

[wjemather]

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.

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]

We are talking about the WORLD HS are we not ? I keep getting told it is the same the World over.

 

[wjemather]

We are talking about the WORLD HS are we not ? I keep getting told it is the same the World over.

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.