WHS - current GM article

[4LEX]

If you play well you could get to +2

Well the problem is also at the lower end the WHS is being manipulated so a lot of 4 handicappers can get really low by submitting scores from their home courses and then enter elite amateur events. I've played in a few and a lot would struggle to break 78 round a tough course. The whole system is flawed and allows players to increase their handicap quickly or decrease it quickly, depending on the motives. These being good players to reduce their handicap so they can enter big amateur events. Or medicore players to increase theirs so they can 'pot hunt' and win club comps or open events.

The old system wasn't perfect but reductions of 0.1 were spot on and handicaps were a truer reflection of ability. These days a few good/bad weeks of golf and the handicap can change by a ridiculous amount.

 

[rulefan]

So why are EG not accepting players with to many GP cards in elite ballots?

This is not quite the situation. Only if an event is oversubscribed is this brought in. Only the scores of players who are at the bottom of the list (by handicap) are segregated by the number of competition scores in their records.

 

[D-S]

This is not quite the situation. Only if an event is oversubscribed is this brought in. Only the scores of players who are at the bottom of the list (by handicap) are segregated by the number of competition scores in their records.

Of course this is a method of sorting over subscribed events, if there are not enough entrants to fill up the event who cares if there are vanity handicappers, they’ll not win anyway.
I didn’t realise that the only players who the ‘4 GP scores or more’ rule applied to were only ones at ‘the bottom of the list (by handicap)’, how do they define the ‘bottom of the list’? If a player has 5 ridiculously low GP scores as part of their counting 8 and therefore has a phenomenally low index and so are at the ‘top of the list’ are they then ok to play?

 

[AussieKB]

All this moaning from every quarter, you all need to get some vintage/classic clubs, forget about winning things and just enjoy your golf.

It's not all about the score.

Then why have a scorecard ?

 

[IanMcC]

As a +1 handicap I don't bother entering many club comps simply because I have zero chance of winning. I'd need to shoot a course record just to scrape into the Top 3 in a lot of events. I only bother with knock outs, Club Champs and next year will focus on regional/national events if I can stay injury free.

The new system has been a disaster and devalued a lot of club golf, IMO.

Is this the definition of a Vanity Handicap?

 

[badgergm]

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.”

With respect to the 95% adjustment only making sense for fields 30 or more, then does anyone know if that figure is based on assumed %s of low and high handicaps?

Logically, it will be more required if you have,say, 1 scratch golfer and 29 x 20 handicap golfers than 29 x scratch golfers and 1 x 20 handicap golfer.

Or, making same assumption on handicap spread that leads to the figure of 30, what field size would lead to 90% providing equity?

Maybe we should let the computer decide what % is appropriate for any given comp based on the number and handicaps of those entering?

 

[Swango1980]

With respect to the 95% adjustment only making sense for fields 30 or more, then does anyone know if that figure is based on assumed %s of low and high handicaps?

Logically, it will be more required if you have,say, 1 scratch golfer and 29 x 20 handicap golfers than 29 x scratch golfers and 1 x 20 handicap golfer.

Or, making same assumption on handicap spread that leads to the figure of 30, what field size would lead to 90% providing equity?

Maybe we should let the computer decide what % is appropriate for any given comp based on the number and handicaps of those entering?

Good point

I'd just do what Aussies do. Stick the 95 or 93% into Course Hcp and be done with it. Just go and play with that hcp in singles.

I'm making the assumption high handicappers won't be overly offended, won't camp outside the R&A to protest and will still be competitive in competitions on their good days.

However, I've not sat down and analysed millions of scores, so that opinion will be invalid for some.

 

[AussieKB]

Good point

I'd just do what Aussies do. Stick the 95 or 93% into Course Hcp and be done with it. Just go and play with that hcp in singles.

I'm making the assumption high handicappers won't be overly offended, won't camp outside the R&A to protest and will still be competitive in competitions on their good days.

However, I've not sat down and analysed millions of scores, so that opinion will be invalid for some.

That have out here in OZ, that is why they introduced the 93%, still the high handicappers win the majority of the time with 40 plus points.

 

[Teebs]

Is this the definition of a Vanity Handicap?

I kinda do the opposite - enter majority of club comps but rarely enter a GP card

 

[Jimaroid]

What data is collected from all the social golf that is played. I'm not aware of any.
…
This is not a fault of WHS.

Maybe it is though! That is one of the main criticisms - the statistical analysis was only done on competition data that exists/existed. And it may be a significant flaw - it ignored all the unobserved data of social and non-competitive play.

Social golf used to mean any non-competition round, unrecorded. But it’s now recorded (in uncertain quantitiies) due to all general play submissions. That’s a massive change in criteria in the dataset. More data does not mean it’s more correct. More different data is just more different data. The system is flawed if it is not modelling for these differences.

No matter what the clipboard rules brigade think, the majority of golfers do not treat a general play score entry with the same rigour as a competition round. We’ve all seen it. I’ve seen it on the course. I’ve seen it in some of my own and other club members. I’ve seen it in some people on this forum.

I’d argue that a general play score should not have the same weighting in handicap calculations as it does in competition fields. By roundabout and late-stage sticking plaster that is effectively what England Golf have introduced by limiting numbers of general play scores permitted for competition entry.

I like the idea of WHS on the whole but it is very easy to both intentionally and unintentionally manipulate. There is something wrong.

 

[wjemather]

... that is effectively what England Golf have introduced by limiting numbers of general play scores permitted for competition entry.

To repeat, this is not the policy.

 

[Hobbit]

Guys, let’s just agree to disagree on opinions. The system isn’t perfect but at least it isn’t perfect for everyone

 

[Jimaroid]

Guys, let’s just agree to disagree on opinions. The system isn’t perfect but at least it isn’t perfect for everyone

Hmmm.

To repeat, this is not the policy.

Put your clipboard away, you know very well what is meant.

 

[Backsticks]

That have out here in OZ, that is why they introduced the 93%, still the high handicappers win the majority of the time with 40 plus points.

As they should. Depending on where you mark the category high handicappers, there are far more of them than lows. And 40+ would be the expected winning score from a typical field.

And, while there are manipulators of hc at all levels and with different motivations, even if we exclude the minority of what we refer to as the classic vanity handicappers in the sub 5 range, I would guess (without any more nor less backing data than most of this discussion), that in the low range, there are far more vanity-lite handicappers. Not out and out manipulators. Buy guys whose handicap is just on the limit, and the do minimise the chances of it rising. I dont think the same applies in the 20+ range. They will not care whether their HI slips from 25 to 26, what their next score is to drop out, or whether to skip a comp day, or not put in a casual round score because the conditions are bad and a score on their higher end is more likely. So think many low men are contributors to their own feeling of lack of competitiveness against the higher rangers.

Flipping raining again, and course closed. Flippity flip. Worst Autumn ever. Dreaming of April....

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Guys, let’s just agree to disagree on opinions. The system isn’t perfect but at least it isn’t perfect for everyone

It's like reading the LIV thread at it's worst .

 

[rulefan]

When I posted above I was recalling what I remembered from over a year ago. The current policy, which I believe has been refined, is below.

2. Review Process (General Play)
2.1 England Golf will conduct a report on all the entrants of the championship to indicate those that have more than 4 General Play scores within their handicap record (last 20 scores).
2.2 Those handicap records that have more than 4 General Play scores will then be further assessed to determine the difference between their Competition Score differential and the General Play differential.
2.3 In a situation where this comparison results in a differential of more than 2 strokes then the entrant will be notified and informed that their entry into the championship has been denied.

Example

Score differential between Competition SD and General Play SD greater than 2 strokes, therefore entry would be denied.

2.4 England Golf will notify the home club (and county) that an entry has been refused into a championship under this policy and that a review of the submission of General Play scores should be considered.

 

[clubchamp98]

You don't know what the data supports.
Also, not what I said.

Well you asked me for my evidence.
But you havnt even seen the evidence to support your claim.
Nobody has and that’s part of the problem.

 

[Hobbit]

It's like reading the LIV thread at its ’ve heard worst .

I heard moans about the various handicap systems adopted going back almost as far as my early golfing days when woods were woods and all irons were (butter knife) blades. And as competitions/handicap sec I even got a solicitor’s letter for cutting a handicap cheat… I see little point in getting all hot about it. There’s nowt any of us can really do other than just go out and enjoy good company and (lousy) golf.

 

[clubchamp98]

This is not quite the situation. Only if an event is oversubscribed is this brought in. Only the scores of players who are at the bottom of the list (by handicap) are segregated by the number of competition scores in their records.

So they will take the money of handicap manipulators if the comps not full.
But will only ballot out if oversubscribed..

I did say ballot which suggests it’s oversubscribed.! Or you don’t need a ballot.

 

[Imurg]

There’s nowt any of us can really do other than just go out and enjoy good company and (lousy) golf.

Speak for yourself...my golf's good, it's the company that's lousy...