WHS - current GM article

[clubchamp98]

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.

It has been said but now they have the means to put it into practice in quite a short space of time!

 

[AussieKB]

It has been said but now they have the means to put it into practice in quite a short space of time!

In OZ I can put 20 competition cards in a month by playing at several courses, so can go out up by a few shots very easily if I so wanted, have seen players play a competition and put in a dodgy score because they were dropping off a good score just to get a shot back for a golf letter event.

What ever system we have it will not be perfect but I think this one is very easy to manipulate, here in OZ we have made at least 5 changes to improve it and still it is not well liked, common quote "it's the system" when someone is asked about going up, not that they are in poor form at the moment.

 

[Swango1980]

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.

Yes, but the entire book before it explains it is about equity, and gives the example.

It then simply factually says lower handicappers lose less shots, which is obvious. But, bonus of excellence is nothing to do with giving lower handicappers any sort of extra advantage. It is about equity.

 

[Teebs]

In our last October medal I won lowest gross, 2nd net in division 1 and 4th overall off a handicap of 4.
Low handicaps at our place always have a chance of prizes in division 1 and there's always a lowest gross to shoot for.

 

[Birdie2]

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?

We’re lucky at our place that there is a good number of old ‘cat 1’ players. It wouldn’t work at every club. Other options however are more medals which encourages better or more consistent golf. Clubs could have multiple divisions in stablefords too. I’d rather compete for a smaller pot with lower handicappers than pay my entry fee knowing someone is going to have 43 points

 

[RichA]

We’re lucky at our place that there is a good number of old ‘cat 1’ players. It wouldn’t work at every club. Other options however are more medals which encourages better or more consistent golf. Clubs could have multiple divisions in stablefords too. I’d rather compete for a smaller pot with lower handicappers than pay my entry fee knowing someone is going to have 43 points

This makes complete sense.
I don't understand why better golfers feel like they need to compete in the regular Stableford comps with the masses.
Even if they win, which they often do at ours, what's the challenge in beating people who you know are nowhere near as good as you?

 

[Imurg]

This makes complete sense.
I don't understand why better golfers feel like they need to compete in the regular Stableford comps with the masses.
Even if they win, which they often do at ours, what's the challenge in beating people who you know are nowhere near as good as you?

Maybe they're just getting in enough competition cards so they can enter the bigger events....as it seems , in many cases, general play cards aren't good enough to allow entry.

 

[Backache]

Yes, but the entire book before it explains it is about equity, and gives the example.

It then simply factually says lower handicappers lose less shots, which is obvious. But, bonus of excellence is nothing to do with giving lower handicappers any sort of extra advantage. It is about equity.

Absolutely which is why the hdid stats quoted by Golf Monthly for Competetive Stableford scores suggest the system as implemented in the UK is biased against low handicappers winning.

 

[pokerjoke]

This makes complete sense.
I don't understand why better golfers feel like they need to compete in the regular Stableford comps with the masses.
Even if they win, which they often do at ours, what's the challenge in beating people who you know are nowhere near as good as you?

I agree
However as a low handicapper winning against high handicapper’s makes it quite satisfying.
It’s a challenge beating HH because they expect to win Stableford comps.

Golf whatever the format is a chance to get the handicap down lower, this might allow me to play in scratch comps County wide.

I do agree about low handicap’s entering Stapleford comps but I suggest it’s not a priority.

 

[Teebs]

Maybe they're just getting in enough competition cards so they can enter the bigger events....as it seems , in many cases, general play cards aren't good enough to allow entry.

Understand some unions are stipulating a minimum number of comp cards to be allowed entry into scratch comps.

 

[Imurg]

Understand some unions are stipulating a minimum number of comp cards to be allowed entry into scratch comps.

Indeed...being encouraged from one side to enter as many cards as possible and being told from the other that too many GP cards and you can't enter some comps....

 

[Teebs]

Indeed...being encouraged from one side to enter as many cards as possible and being told from the other that too many GP cards and you can't enter some comps....

I guess some organisers are aware of handicap manipulation at the lower end of the handicap scale. Very hard to manage really.

 

[D-S]

I guess some organisers are aware of handicap manipulation at the lower end of the handicap scale. Very hard to manage really.

Like the England Golf Championship Committee.

 

[rulefan]

Like the England Golf Championship Committee.

And my County

 

[rulefan]

Absolutely which is why the hdid stats quoted by Golf Monthly for Competetive Stableford scores suggest the system as implemented in the UK is biased against low handicappers winning.

"In fact, this year in competition (to end July,) Category 1 players have posted the lowest average Stableford score of all categories – 27.48 compared to the highest of 29.62 in Category 4… That’s quite a turnaround from 2020 when Cat 1 averaged more than 6 points more than Cat 4!

That shows the system is fairer than it was though. Category 1 players now feel hard done by as they’re not winning everything in sight, but there’s a difference of just 2 points across the board, compared to the 13 before…"

 

[clubchamp98]

Played a 4bbb today.
Two 20+ cappers had 31 pts only 11 holes open .
so we’re 9 under cap on 11 holes???

Low guys just laughed in the clubhouse as it’s impossible to compete with that.

 

[Backache]

"In fact, this year in competition (to end July,) Category 1 players have posted the lowest average Stableford score of all categories – 27.48 compared to the highest of 29.62 in Category 4… That’s quite a turnaround from 2020 when Cat 1 averaged more than 6 points more than Cat 4!

That shows the system is fairer than it was though. Category 1 players now feel hard done by as they’re not winning everything in sight, but there’s a difference of just 2 points across the board, compared to the 13 before…"

The point is to be fair Cat 1 players should be averaging more than Cat 4. If they are averaging less the system does discriminate against them, which is the complaint.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

From my anecdotal experience based on conversations with numerous people, under WHS the low guys got lower, the mid handicaps stayed about the same and the higher guys went up. I would agree with this.

Definitely makes it harder for the low guys to win anything. Which again has been the case at my club.

 

[wjemather]

There are (oh, so) many issues with GMs analysis of HDID data, not least the use of bare Stableford scores. It really doesn't support any more specific conclusions than "WHS is much fairer than UHS was".

 

[Backache]

There are (oh, so) many issues with GMs analysis of HDID data, not least the use of bare Stableford scores. It really doesn't support any more specific conclusions than "WHS is much fairer than UHS was".

It actually suggests it's likely to be discriminating against good golfers which is a pretty unwelcome outcome to my mind.