D-S
Well-known member
I remember the fuss created by those ‘losing a shot’ in singles strokeplay when WHS came in. With some golfers in such clubs ‘losing’ 3 shots and most golfers ‘losing’ 2 shots, I can see this being slightly problematic.
WHS and club completions
- Thread starter Springveldt
- Start date
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
If its proven that 95% wasn’t quite right for the make-up of players in a great many club comps then stands to reason that using 90 or at a push 85 will correct that, all good then
however If whs is (as often claimed) a cheats charter & its rife with them, then won’t that 18 handicapper bandit simply creep up to be a 20 handicapper in a couple of months time, negating the change? (even extending it since most others are losing shots)
however If whs is (as often claimed) a cheats charter & its rife with them, then won’t that 18 handicapper bandit simply creep up to be a 20 handicapper in a couple of months time, negating the change? (even extending it since most others are losing shots)
wjemather
Well-known member
There are many large field events that would certainly warrant 90%, but there would also have to be a comparatively (and unusually) small number of lower handicappers to justify 85%.
Either way, it's no easy task to get everyone to understand and accept such a change.
Speaking of which, I now need to explain (yet again) to our seniors why they can't use 100% in 2 from 3 best-ball ahead of their monthly bowmaker.
Either way, it's no easy task to get everyone to understand and accept such a change.
Speaking of which, I now need to explain (yet again) to our seniors why they can't use 100% in 2 from 3 best-ball ahead of their monthly bowmaker.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Could that be made mandatory instead of leaving it to committee.?
Is there a reason it hasn’t as it would stop any arguments?
wjemather
Well-known member
There's probably no way that would prevent arguments.
AussieKB
Well-known member
Come on guys, remember what the W stands for.......it's the same the W over or is it ?
Swango1980
Well-known member
Why would their handicaps creep up further? The Index calculation would be the same.
However, if you mean that actual handicaps cheats would just cheat even harder, then I'd question how they are cheating right now. Are they posting bad scores, but not too bad. And now they will just post worse scores by cheating harder? I'd have thought a person who is actually cheating would pretty much go all out cheating right from the start anyway. Although, maybe if they do cheat harder, they'd be a little easier to identify?
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Why would their handicaps creep up further? The Index calculation would be the same.
However, if you mean that actual handicaps cheats would just cheat even harder, then I'd question how they are cheating right now. Are they posting bad scores, but not too bad. And now they will just post worse scores by cheating harder? I'd have thought a person who is actually cheating would pretty much go all out cheating right from the start anyway. Although, maybe if they do cheat harder, they'd be a little easier to identify?
I'm suggesting that if they’ve purposely & surreptitiously increased their index to get an unfair advantage in comps and they now think they’ve ‘lost’ 2 of those shots in PH due to 85% then I’m assuming they’ll have no moral issue increasing their index once again in order to get those shots back
They still need to be caught (which they haven't been in the last 5 years) & they'll skew the 90/85 trial
Swango1980
Well-known member
I don't think it will skew it at all to be fair.
I absolutely agree that there are handicap cheats out there. And, they may well cheat harder as you suggest. However, I'm also fully confident that handicap cheats make up a ridiculously small proportion of the overall field in competitions. Such a low proportion that their influence on evaluating the difference in results once 85% is used would be insignificant. Furthermore, I'd imagine many of these handicap cheats tend to stay away from competitions where their score will be submitted for handicap. Probably play more often in Team Opens and Match Play.
AussieKB
Well-known member
In OZ after all the years we have had this system, and with as many changes, it still has not stopped the mid to high 40's score turning up in Open events.
Funny enough am sure you can guess what handicap range that is.
Funny enough am sure you can guess what handicap range that is.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
But at least the comittiee could not be accused of setting it up to favour their handicap group!
They could just say “ it’s what the chart says”
Under 50 players 95%
100 and over 90%.
150 and over 85%
These are only guidelines.
wjemather
Well-known member
wjemather
Well-known member
Unfortunately it's not just about total numbers but also the proportion of higher and lower handicappers (the GI poster is linked above).
The obvious problem with the poster is use of the terms lower and higher handicappers without defining what that actually means in terms of handicaps. As we know, some people think 12 is lower (certainly lower than average), others think it is higher (certainly higher than single figures).
D-S
Well-known member
That is a really woolly series of recommendations.
Competition results and payouts are going to be based on committees’ best estimates of field size and composition and their individual definition on what constitutes a ‘low’ handicapper and a ‘higher’ handicapper, as well as what they consider a ‘normal’ distribution of handicaps is.
It’s a racing certainty that those who would have won based on a different estimate and therefore % allowance are going to be upset.
D-S
Well-known member
My club is running a Stableford today. The committee has no idea of what the field size is going to be and also have absolutely no clue as to what the handicap distribution is going to be. It is only fair that competitors know how many shots they are getting prior to play. How on earth can they be fair under such a system?
wjemather
Well-known member
Perhaps they should have taken distribution of handicaps out of it, and just assumed a typical spread and specified simple recommendations based solely on field size; e.g. <30 = 100%; 31-100 = 95%; 101-200 = 90%; >200 = 85%.
There could then be an addendum about adjusting when there are unusual numbers of lower (<10) or higher (25+) handicappers.
Seems likely that there will be 3 main camps:
- Continue with 95% because it's too complicated/too much hassle/been working perfectly fine as it is
- Use 100% because it's simple and too many people never understood why they were "losing shots" in comps
- Use 85% (whether the data justifies it or not) because better players have been complaining the loudest
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
If only we had a system that put golfers in categories.
Say like cat 1/2/3/4
That would make it easier
D-S
Well-known member
Or, as recommended, divisions.If only we had a system that put golfers in categories.
Say like cat 1/2/3/4
That would make it easier
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Why can’t they use them then to set the comp allowance.?
Orikoru
Tour Winner
I already lose three shots at 95%. If my club decided to change to 85%, I'd be playing off 12 from an index of 16.1.
