Agreed. Regardless of the magnitude, the bias was there. Now removed => greater equality. Ergo WHS is an improvement on UHS.
WHS - current GM article
- Thread starter Teebs
- Start date
Birdie2
Club Champion
At the end of the day there’s a couple of things going on here.
1. We wouldn’t be having this debate if the handicap system provided a genuine equal opportunity for low handicappers to compete.
2. The reality is in fact from my experience that the average field of a competition will be between 10-14 depending on club.
If 70% are in that handicap range one of them is going to ‘have their day’ and have the 43 points that often get mentioned. Especially true if the field is large.
Options to keep the low player interest? Divisions!
And not ‘Div 1’ where you lump us in with 12 handicappers - again acknowledging this will vary from club to club.
In a system that cannot ever be fair (because there are too many variables) just give lower handicaps the chance to compete against one another.
I’d far rather enter a stableford in a small field of cat 1 players than not enter at all because I’m competing with 10 12 handicappers in ‘div 1’
1. We wouldn’t be having this debate if the handicap system provided a genuine equal opportunity for low handicappers to compete.
2. The reality is in fact from my experience that the average field of a competition will be between 10-14 depending on club.
If 70% are in that handicap range one of them is going to ‘have their day’ and have the 43 points that often get mentioned. Especially true if the field is large.
Options to keep the low player interest? Divisions!
And not ‘Div 1’ where you lump us in with 12 handicappers - again acknowledging this will vary from club to club.
In a system that cannot ever be fair (because there are too many variables) just give lower handicaps the chance to compete against one another.
I’d far rather enter a stableford in a small field of cat 1 players than not enter at all because I’m competing with 10 12 handicappers in ‘div 1’
AussieKB
Well-known member
no, not doing them all but there were 37 single figures....
RichA
Well-known member
No. I wasn't being that binary, although I do believe that HI manipulation at all handicap levels has some impact on scores. How could it not when pretty much all of us seem to know sandbaggers and vanity cappers?
I don't believe anyone is being disadvantaged by the algorithms or mechanism of WHS. The issue worrying some is just an unfortunate probability thing, exacerbated by large fields.
The thing that can wreck the "fairness", as some of them see it, for low golfers is legitimate exceptional scoring by a high handicapper.
If there are enough 20+ handicappers in any comp the probability of one of them shooting 7 under handicap approaches 100%. I would guess that 20 of them makes it about 50/50. 40 of them pretty much means one of them is winning today.
No handicap management system could really account for that. It has more to do with the organisation of comps.
If low players want an equal chance of winning, just avoid big comps with the hackers. But where would be the achievement in beating 40 talentless golfers anyway?
nickjdavis
Head Pro
Yep...based on what I see I would tend to agree with those conclusions.
There is simply more volatility in the scoring patterns of high handicappers (in both directions) than there is of low handicappers. The more high handicappers there are in a field, the greater the chance is that one of them will have that day when they shoot low. Its simply unavoidable.
Backache
Assistant Pro
There seem to be some people saying it's fairer now. Some people saying it isn't.
There is a distinct paucity of firm evidence to say either view is correct.
With one view based on observations which are necessarily anecdotal and the other on unknown stats from organisations with a vested interest in saying the outcome works but who don't actually release any data.
The only large scale data being the hdid figures which suggest that in Stableford low handicappers are disadvantaged in winning.
There is a distinct paucity of firm evidence to say either view is correct.
With one view based on observations which are necessarily anecdotal and the other on unknown stats from organisations with a vested interest in saying the outcome works but who don't actually release any data.
The only large scale data being the hdid figures which suggest that in Stableford low handicappers are disadvantaged in winning.
On the psychology of the low men though, are most not closer to the ragged edge limit of their handicap than the 20somethings ?
Leave aside what really is probably a small minority ; both vanity men who rarely put in a card, and, those putting in questionable/cheat cards to keep the HI low or for access to elite events.
But taking the fully honest vast majority of low men - do we really know any who sandbag ? I mean, is there really a comfortable +2 who 'manages' his handicap out to a more competitive -1 ? Or a scratch who lets it be 4 or 5 ? I am inclined to think not. The gain, maybe winning a handicapped comp with 42 points, is tiny compared to the loss of prestige. So I dont think there is any incentive to do so. Prestige doesnt exist at 21 (sorry 21s !). So 21, 24, its all the same to those minded to manipulate. The scratch player with the same morality, is probably held in check by the badge of scratch being worth more than being a 3, but with a £50 proshop voucher in his hand.
We are 19 pages in and clearly the forum is at a crossroads 
What is the answer if the current system isn't working?
What is the answer if the current system isn't working?
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
We are 19 pages in and clearly the forum is at a crossroads
What is the answer if the current system isn't working?
Ideally GM would run a 2nd linked article by someone qualified, which validates (or not) or at least explains, each of the various points & concerns raised in the first article
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
75% not 95% for individual strokeplay.We are 19 pages in and clearly the forum is at a crossroads
What is the answer if the current system isn't working?
You're welcome.
AussieKB
Well-known member
Then another thread would open up by the high handicappers....ha ha75% not 95% for individual strokeplay.
You're welcome.
How do you think competition participation would go at that point? 130 down to 30-40?75% not 95% for individual strokeplay.
You're welcome.
If people think the system is skewed then you shave a percentage point or 2 off. Chopping it would have a severe impact, but I suspect you know that.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Wabinez
Journeyman Pro
But that wouldn't be the clickbait and raise views.
Stick an article out for someone complaining, and the views take care of themselves. No-one really cares for fair and balanced reporting anymore, just the extremes to drive division and cause faux outrage and arguments.
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Probably but wouldn’t it be good to have the 2nd piece from an official source that concludes either;
The player has a point, here’s how….
The player lacks understanding, here’s why…
Or a combination thereof
Can't really see any downside for GM in running it
Jimaroid
Journeyman Pro
What you’re asking for is peer review in academic publishing.
And, yes, wouldn’t that be nice?
And, yes, wouldn’t that be nice?
No. Some reponsible investigative journalism would be nice though.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Maybe a variable percentage based on the size of the field.!75% not 95% for individual strokeplay.
You're welcome.
This would be a computer generated handicap based on the make up of handicap participants.
Cant see a system that suits everyone as to much is a secret!
Jimaroid
Journeyman Pro
Yes, published in Features section. Which is a difficult classification according to GM themselves as it’s “covering everything from player facts to course history”
But you know, it was written by a woman so clearly it needs investigated to the same degree as the panama papers.
RichA
Well-known member
Yes. Anecdotally, at our small club with about 50 regular competition entrants, one third of the comps were won by single digit handicappers this year, yet they only made up one sixth of the field.
But they still moaned when they were beaten by talentless hackers.
