WHS - current GM article

[Crow]

For weekend individual competitions my club usually has two divisions with the split dependent on the make-up of the entry for each competition.

This split is typically:
Div 1 = Up to and including HI 11
Div 2 = HI 12 and above

And there's a lowest gross in each division too although I don't think there's a prize for the Div 2, just the bragging rights.

 

[Orikoru]

Our division one cut off is 14. I just scrape into it because my playing handicap is 14 despite the index being 14.7.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

our division 1 is cut off at 9. we have a lot of single figure golfers

 

[rulefan]

I also think a HC should favour lower players to incentivise excellence.

That is what the 95% is all about. Both the US and Oz had a similar %age built in to their pre WHS systems. It was referred to as a 'Bonus for Excellence.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

That is what the 95% is all about. Both the US and Oz had a similar %age built in to their pre WHS systems. It was referred to as a 'Bonus for Excellence.

I thought that was to balance out the disparity in numbers between low and high players? I may be wrong though

 

[rulefan]

I thought that was to balance out the disparity in numbers between low and high players? I may be wrong though

Why would it have been referred to as a 'Bonus for Excellence'?

An explanation:
“95 per cent, or the allowance that you get for competition play, is about equity. It’s about ensuring that, when all players are playing together in a field, every player has got the equal chance of success and gaining success in that competition.

“Now if you can imagine a player off scratch, the variation between their best score and their worst score is relatively tight.
“They might have a bad round but their bad round is five over. If they have a good round, it might be two or three under. It’s not going to be eight or nine under, or 10 or 11 under, or shooting 25 over.
“It’s going to be relatively tight, in terms of their expected score, whereas a player off 28 is going to be very different.

“They’re going to be able to have a really good day. A 28 handicapper might actually play to 22 one day, or 20, but they might also play to 45.
“Their expectation is also quite wide, so the higher the handicap the wider the tolerance for their scores.

“If you played everybody off 100 per cent, the high handicap golfers, statistically, always have a better chance of winning – because they could shoot six or seven below, or eight or nine below, quite easily. “What 95% does is it basically reduces that down – so by taking more shots off the higher handicap players, and fewer shots off the lower handicap players, it means there is a better distribution of success across the field.

“Believe it or not, it might sound like saying you’re saying ‘well, that’s great but why introduce this now?’

“It’s actually always been built within the CONGU system. It was just built in a way that was hidden. You didn’t see it. It was part of the way that a handicap was calculated, and why you only went up point one and you came down by a certain value depending on your handicap category.

“It’s nothing unusual. It’s just it’s now public facing. It’s not just us, the rest of the world are doing it as well. So it’s a global thing. The USGA have a great name for it. They call it Bonus For Excellence, which basically means, the better you are the less impact it has on your score. That’s why it is there.”

 

[Swango1980]

That is what the 95% is all about. Both the US and Oz had a similar %age built in to their pre WHS systems. It was referred to as a 'Bonus for Excellence.

That is incorrect.

It is there to try and account for the fact, to some degree, that in large fields there is a higher probability that a higher handicapper will shoot a very good score, and a score making it unlikely a low handicapper will be able to compete with it. I'm assuming it was done by looking at many many scores, and working out what % would be appropriate in singles stroke play.

The main WHS Manual only really says it is appropriate for large fields (over 30), but in the UK and Ireland it is mandatory for all field sizes. If it was simply a bonus for excellence, then why would it not be applied to all field sizes in the general manual? Why would we not use it in singles match play?

There is no way the 95% is there to simply favour low handicappers, giving them an extra bonus for excellence. If it was, then there would be a few on here screaming even more that WHS discriminates against high handicappers, and their argument was very much that is does not, and is thus better than the previous system.

I don't know much about the old US and Oz systems, so no idea if it was truly a bonus for excellence then (as it was referred to from what you say), or was there to do something similar to the Allowances we have now. H

 

[rulefan]

I don't know much about the old US and Oz systems, so no idea if it was truly a bonus for excellence then (as it was referred to from what you say), or was there to do something similar to the Allowances we have now. H

This what Golf Australia (who I believe first introduced the idea) have to say about it. They now use 93% rather than 95%. I think the USGA used to use 98%

Why do we include a 0.93 multiplication in the calculation of a Daily Handicap? The 0.93 factor is called ‘the Multiplier’. The Multiplier is a balancing factor designed to offset the impact of players on different handicap levels having different levels of consistency. In general, skilled players are more consistent than less-skilled players, so if we didn’t have the Multiplier there would be a strong advantage for high-handicap players in handicap competitions.

Incidentally, the text in my earlier post #188 came from England Golf.
The higher the handicap the more strokes the player loses.

 

[Backsticks]

She’s wrote about her experiences and has given her opinion.

It’s not bad journalism because you don’t agree, which of course you’re entitled to do.

It’s provoked a good debate imo and one side will never convince the other on this one.

I am not saying its bad journalism because I dont agree with it, but because it is simplistic, anecdotal, and based on personal experience. And some of it clearly nonsense even to those who do have sympathy with the plight of low indexers. We can all provide that, and better in general, here ourselves, or in our clubs bars. Good journalism would be a deeper analysis into the certainly controversial topic providing some insight, supporting data, and a justified conclusion.

 

[Birdie2]

Interesting thread…
From club to club the definition of a ‘low handicapper’ will vary. Some will class 6 as low and others it’s towards 1 and scratch.

As a ‘low handicapper’ (3) I don’t think WHS has much to do with it. You’ll never get a system that is ‘fair’ because there are too many variables.

Clubs in my opinion have an opportunity to reward better players with competitive play that involves lower players. There are frankly too many stablefords (that are board comps) that a low player has little chance of winning yet alone competing in.

This isn’t a gripe, because stablefords serve their purpose as not everyone is obsessed (like I am) with getting to a very low index - it has to be fun and accessible for the membership. I get it.

Clubs need to do more to reward better players and incentivise competitive golf at the better end of the game. More scratch comps. More board comps that are won on gross scoring rather than nett. It’s obvious that not everyone wants this but just let us compete against one another more regularly than we currently have the opportunity to do so!

 

[Backsticks]

An interesting article would be an enquiry into why have the home unions made such a big cockup of the transition to WHS. Recent NCG podcasts touch on it but their cone of silence and non-answers does ring of incompetence. Whatever about the PCC silence conspiracy theorists, the Congu regions lack of communication makes it look like they were a bit like the scratch players, and only dragged into WHS against their will, hence the half hearted and botched move. The WHS analogies NGC chats have had with Brexit are quite apt.

 

[IanM]

Indeed.......has anyone ever changed their opinion on anything, based on what they've read on a forum?

 

[clubchamp98]

Indeed.......has anyone ever changed their opinion on anything, based on what they've read on a forum?

Spot on
people base opinions on their personal experience ( no matter what the data says) and mine is WHS is crap if your a single figure golfer who takes his / her game seriously and is competitive.
Its more or less killed competition for me with the scores needed to win now.

The amount of times I have heard in the clubhouse “ I need to get a few shots back to have a chance”
Under this system it’s much easier to do!

 

[ColchesterFC]

Interesting thread…
From club to club the definition of a ‘low handicapper’ will vary. Some will class 6 as low and others it’s towards 1 and scratch.

As a ‘low handicapper’ (3) I don’t think WHS has much to do with it. You’ll never get a system that is ‘fair’ because there are too many variables.

Clubs in my opinion have an opportunity to reward better players with competitive play that involves lower players. There are frankly too many stablefords (that are board comps) that a low player has little chance of winning yet alone competing in.

This isn’t a gripe, because stablefords serve their purpose as not everyone is obsessed (like I am) with getting to a very low index - it has to be fun and accessible for the membership. I get it.

Clubs need to do more to reward better players and incentivise competitive golf at the better end of the game. More scratch comps. More board comps that are won on gross scoring rather than nett. It’s obvious that not everyone wants this but just let us compete against one another more regularly than we currently have the opportunity to do so!

I'm not a low handicapper and I've never entered a club competition/board competition. All of my golf has been 4BBB, Texas Scramble or social golf, but I'm interested by the point I've bolded. Is it worth clubs putting on more scratch competitions or best gross comps, would they get enough entrants to make it worthwhile? Are there enough low handicap golfers at a club that regular scratch comps would be well enough supported? Would people playing off 5 or 6 feel that it was worth entering these comps or would they feel like low handicappers do now in handicap comps and not bothering to enter as they are highly unlikely to win?

 

[wjemather]

The amount of times I have heard in the clubhouse “ I need to get a few shots back to have a chance”

When has this ever not been said? At least under the old system, higher handicappers and declining golfers were often justified in saying it.

Anyway, and of course, what supposedly better players should be saying, is that they need to play/score better to have a chance.

 

[louise_a]

This article was posted in a ladies golf group and most single figure handicappers were in agreement with the article, I wasn't, lower handicappers still win a disproportionate number of competitions at my club, several said they don't enter knockouts, I won 2 single knockout and one fourball knockout often giving 12 or more shots. Yes higher handicappers are more likely to have a very low score but that was probably always the case. The main thing for me is that under CONGU most people were playing off too low a handicap due to the slow speed you went up, now people have a more accurate, albeit in a lot of cases, higher handicap

 

[rulefan]

An interesting article would be an enquiry into why have the home unions made such a big cockup of the transition to WHS. Recent NCG podcasts touch on it but their cone of silence and non-answers does ring of incompetence. Whatever about the PCC silence conspiracy theorists, the Congu regions lack of communication makes it look like they were a bit like the scratch players, and only dragged into WHS against their will, hence the half hearted and botched move. The WHS analogies NGC chats have had with Brexit are quite apt.

Whatever you think of WHS itself and remembering the natural parochial tendency of the CONGU national unions, just what are these manifestations of a 'big cockup' that CONGU is responsible for?

 

[rulefan]

The amount of times I have heard in the clubhouse “ I need to get a few shots back to have a chance”
Under this system it’s much easier to do!

Of course, under the old system, low cappers suffering a permanent loss of form (age, physical conditions) would take ages to get to their 'correct' handicap which may be 5 or more shots worse than they were. They would then have a legitimate complaint that the hadn't got any chance of winning anything. A good proportion of my roll-up in such a situation stopped entering comps which then only exacerbated the situation.

 

[Backsticks]

Whatever you think of WHS itself and remembering the natural parochial tendency of the CONGU national unions, just what are these manifestations of a 'big cockup' that CONGU is responsible for?

That we had to put our own spin on WHS and didnt implement it wholly, in line with the rest of the world, or at least the other big golf regions. As often mentioned - so much for a 'world' handicap justification for the transition.
CR-Par is the mess of next April. Whatever their arguments for not bringing it in 3 years ago, once WHS was defined, the deal was done and they should have rowed in. Whatever the confusion and impression of complexity it brings, going for one big bang day 1 at that time would have been simpler than a two step process. Rather than a fear the UK golfer wasnt ready/mature/capable to cut the ties with their UHS culture, I think it was the blazers who were the luddites at heart. Have a listen to the NGC podcasts on the topic.

 

[Backsticks]

Of course, under the old system, low cappers suffering a permanent loss of form (age, physical conditions) would take ages to get to their 'correct' handicap which may be 5 or more shots worse than they were. They would then have a legitimate complaint that the hadn't got any chance of winning anything. A good proportion of my roll-up in such a situation stopped entering comps which then only exacerbated the situation.

Is true, and this does restore a fair chance to low HIs of winning handicapped competitions that they would not have had under UHS. Again, this is to the benefit of low HIs but they dont see it.