WHS - current GM article

[jim8flog]

Half following her comments about County events and low handicappers. I play in the same county and one of my playing mates is a county official. He was making the comment when watching county events that there are clearly quite a few handicap protectors in the lower ranks and there were several he had seen that clearly should not be playing in these events.

One of the improvements of the WHS is penalty scores for cards not returned.

 

[jim8flog]

The article says that they have over 100 active lady members at her club.

I read the article after posting my comment - shame on me.

However is the real problem that even with a 100 active ladies are there enough low handicappers to have realistic divisions.

 

[D-S]

My county hasn't used handicaps (either UHS or WHS) for ranking or selection for well over 10 years.

 

[Teebs]

Half following her comments about County events and low handicappers. I play in the same county and one of my playing mates is a county official. He was making the comment when watching county events that there are clearly quite a few handicap protectors in the lower ranks and there were several he had seen that clearly should not be playing in these events.

One of the improvements of the WHS is penalty scores for cards not returned.

One of the low Handicaps at my place NRs around 75% of his cards, including Union events when representing the Club.

 

[Backsticks]

Lots of harsh replies already. It’s her experience and opinion of WHS and a lot of it (not all) resonates with me.

Harsh is deserved. Its stoking a misconception about handicapping, and not a responsible analysis of the situation.

Low hcs have always had a gripe about the impossibility of beating high hcs, saying all comps are won by high hcs, usually citing one score, and following it with an 'Id have to shoot 8 under to beat that !!!' type line. Even under UHS and the system was biased IN FAVOUR of low hcs. They simply dont consider the probabilities rationally.
And, some also have this misconception about handicapping : "The vast majority, if not all of those lower h/c players are the ones who really care about their game, work hard at it, take great pride in playing great golf are effectively getting cast aside in favour of the choppers & hackers.". Playing great golf or working hard at it, or, being a 'chopper' (nice), have NOTHING to do with handicapped competition.

WHS, due to :
a) handicaps do now rise and fall faster
b) scores are routinely submitted outside of competition

has unfairly been blamed for exacerbating this inequality which doesnt exist in the first place, and added fuel to that mistrust, as it is seen to be more open to manipulation.
And so those who dont understand WHS, or it seems even the principle of handicapped competition, promote Qanon or Trumpian style fictional conspiracy theories.

 

[Backsticks]

I had sympathy reading the piece and I’ve seen some whacky scores these last couple of years, but I got needlessly distracted from her message by the parts that seemed to muddy the picture a bit

Like shooting 35/36 points much of the year and being well outside the prizes (but when was 36 points enough for a prize, maybe it was for her)
I cant begin to imagine how good a player you need to be to consistently shoot 2/3 over all season and what it must feel like to lose out to a 36+ handicapper by several shots. She says she’s up against 20 & 30 handicappers capable of shooting 10 shots better & the Comp Divisions at her club need reviewed but it sounds like there’s insufficient player numbers of her standard to make a low h/cap (or scratch) division viable. That must be so frustrating for players in her position and some kind of answer needs to be found

She also relates playing to 1 over gross (playing to her h/cap) & losing a match on 17th hole to someone who’s h/cap had risen 8 shots under whs (but that sounds like a close game) image the whitewash if the opponent h/cap was still 6 or 8 shots lower, the author may have won the same game 6&5. Surely she needs a better example to show that whs doesn’t work, this example reads like it is working

I’m probably focussing too much on these peripheral examples within the bigger point being made in the article when there are no doubt some real concerns to discuss for players in her position

35 or 36 and being outside the prizes ? Thats exactly where she should be. Why does she think she should be in the prizes with 35/36 ???

 

[Orikoru]

What was a disappointing read in the article was her gripe about losing on the 17th whilst playing some of her best golf. To lose on the 17th whilst having a good day suggests the other player had a good day too. If she’d got dog licenced whilst playing exceptionally well, I’d have some sympathy but it just reads as sour grapes.

Yeah - she should have left that part out. It weakened her entire argument by making her look like a bad loser who only wrote the article off the back of losing that one match and having a strop about it.

 

[rosecott]

One of the low Handicaps at my place NRs around 75% of his cards, including Union events when representing the Club.

Really? How does he remain a "low handicap"?

 

[Teebs]

Really? How does he remain a "low handicap"?

I would guess that he posts general play rounds...

 

[Crow]

Really? How does he remain a "low handicap"?

I might be wrong but doesn't WHS give a close-to-handicap score for an NR?

That's going to have a lot less impact on your top 8 than a load of 5, 10 or 15 over handicap scores which a vanity handicap might easily make.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I might be wrong but doesn't WHS give a close-to-handicap score for an NR?

That's going to have a lot less impact on your top 8 than a load of 5, 10 or 15 over handicap scores which a vanity handicap might easily make.

Depends on how they NR.

If they fail to return a score for no valid reason the get an automatic penalty score which approximates to a close-to handicap score differential and this usually become one of the best 8. Course Handicap - Course Rating I believe.

If they just fail to complete a medal hole but return the card this is given a NDB for score differential calculation.

If they walk in after at least 10 holes the score is made up on net par plus a net bogey for the first hole not played.

Thus it can be manipulative to use the penalty score system and has to be looked at closely by the Handicap Committee.

 

[AussieKB]

From an Aussie point of view, you have only been using this system for a short time, out here we have seen these results on a regular basis, like I have said before our version of WHS has been changed at least 5 times to try and get a level playing field, still the consensus of low markers is that we are being screwed.

We just had our Open last weekend and a 31 handicapper won to no surprise from anyone.

At least you have not started from scratch with this system like us, I hope to visit next May and have told a few friends I am not giving them loads of shots, for example one was on 12, now 16 and another 12 marker now 18.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Half following her comments about County events and low handicappers. I play in the same county and one of my playing mates is a county official. He was making the comment when watching county events that there are clearly quite a few handicap protectors in the lower ranks and there were several he had seen that clearly should not be playing in these events.

One of the improvements of the WHS is penalty scores for cards not returned.

This shouldn't come as a surprise.

When I worked with elite amateur events prior to WHS it was a common belief that some of the players from different countries, especially the USA, appeared to have lower handicaps than their play warranted. There was also much speculation about the use of supplementary scores (now General Play) being counted towards handicaps of scratch golfers and the impact of that cw our competition only scores.

We have now moved to the same basic for handicap so to an extent the playing field has been levelled. There will be players who want to protect their low handicap to enter elite events but the vast majority of low handicap players of all ages and genders just want to play to the best of their ability. One tangible way of tracking this is via their handicap index.

WHS is not an attempt to correct all the faults from it's predecessor, it's just a completely different way of calculating handicaps.

 

[AussieKB]

It’s always a bit of a sore one for low handicaps losing out to players who play a lot more shots. We all have a moan about it from time to time.

Bottom line is you need a different mindset for handicap golf.

Scratch golf is a competitive sport. Handicap golf isn’t; it’s a fun pastime you do with pals. Winning is as irrelevant as a coin toss.

Trouble is that the majority of golf now is Stableford.....mid to high handicappers do not want to play stroke, so committees cater for them to get larger fields.

 

[RichA]

Trouble is that the majority of golf now is Stableford.....mid to high handicappers do not want to play stroke, so committees cater for them to get larger fields.

I'm a mid-high 15 handicap but actually prefer "medal" strokeplay.
I rarely enter Stableford comps anymore because the mindset of it doesn't get the best out of me. I much prefer it when every shot and the whole round counts.
I think you're probably largely correct though. Our club doesn't bother with monthly medals anymore, but I suspect it's more to do with time wasted by large fields of golfers all having to complete every hole.

 

[HeftyHacker]

As other have said I think she has a good point but it's very badly made and comes across very whingey.

The comment below made me think that she doesn't perhaps understand CR and the WHS as well as she thinks:

"I tee up against these women in county matches and I think, “How did they get as low as that?” It’s actually very easy. Just go and play a short course, put in an extra day card and shoot in the sixties a few times and hey presto! But where’s the pleasure in that?"

Doing the above ordinarily wouldn't have much impact on your handicap as the CR on these shorter courses would likely mean that shooting in the sixties would still only result in the same score differential as the CR would be under par.

This of course opens up the other can of worms around the CRs being accurate but I'm led to believe that length is the single most significant factor in them.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Lots of harsh replies already. It’s her experience and opinion of WHS and a lot of it (not all) resonates with me.

I’m the same handicap as the author and am a steady but not spectacular player so I hover between 2 and 4 under WHS which is a fair reflection. However with the scores coming in now , I have slim to no chance of winning lowest gross or shooting 6 under gross to win a comp.

The interesting part for me is the county coaches saying lots of young players now have vanity handicaps. I’ve thought the same myself a couple of times this year when drawn with young kids who have designs on college golf in the USA.

That's the part where she is most wrong, low handicappers are lower under WHS because that's how it works for consistent players, most who were under scratch converted to WHS a couple shots lower when the switch was made, those from 0-4 generally took a one stroke hit.

 

[rosecott]

Depends on how they NR.

If they fail to return a score for no valid reason the get an automatic penalty score which approximates to a close-to handicap score differential and this usually become one of the best 8. Course Handicap - Course Rating I believe.

If they just fail to complete a medal hole but return the card this is given a NDB for score differential calculation.

If they walk in after at least 10 holes the score is made up on net par plus a net bogey for the first hole not played.

Thus it can be manipulative to use the penalty score system and has to be looked at closely by the Handicap Committee.

I have an EG document which states that, where it is seen to be an "Attempt to maintain low Handicap Index", the Penalty Score should be:

A Gross Score equal to the highest Gross Score in the last 20 scores, added as a Penalty Score. If this appears to be part of a pattern of handicap manipulation then consider the additional penalty actions as discussed above within “subsequent and persistent offenders”

I would be interested to know if any committee has applied this.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Harsh is deserved. Its stoking a misconception about handicapping, and not a responsible analysis of the situation.

Low hcs have always had a gripe about the impossibility of beating high hcs, saying all comps are won by high hcs, usually citing one score, and following it with an 'Id have to shoot 8 under to beat that !!!' type line. Even under UHS and the system was biased IN FAVOUR of low hcs. They simply dont consider the probabilities rationally.
And, some also have this misconception about handicapping : "The vast majority, if not all of those lower h/c players are the ones who really care about their game, work hard at it, take great pride in playing great golf are effectively getting cast aside in favour of the choppers & hackers.". Playing great golf or working hard at it, or, being a 'chopper' (nice), have NOTHING to do with handicapped competition.

WHS, due to :
a) handicaps do now rise and fall faster
b) scores are routinely submitted outside of competition

has unfairly been blamed for exacerbating this inequality which doesnt exist in the first place, and added fuel to that mistrust, as it is seen to be more open to manipulation.
And so those who dont understand WHS, or it seems even the principle of handicapped competition, promote Qanon or Trumpian style fictional conspiracy theories.

Yes UHS absolutely favoursed low handicaps.

WHS favours high handicaps though, stats are in https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

 

[Captain_Black.]

Golf is difficult
A large part of the issue is lack of practice & the variables of our weather.
By & large the lower h/c you are, the more you practice & try to perfect your game in all conditions.
They may not shoot their h/c all the time, but they are rarely many shots adrift.


Higher h/c players I see rarely practice to any great extent, it usually consists of a few chips & putts pre-round, then straight to the 1st tee.
Hence they tend to be very inconsistent, but every now & again they shoot the lights out.
The problem is, in a large field there will always be a few who have a very good day, aside from those who are "playing the system" (I know a few who are doing this)

Unfortunately, the lower handicappers just cannot compete & there is no doubt whatsoever that WHS has exacerbated this.
At my club the very low h/c players never compete in handicap comps, they only play in the club championships & the trophy event we hold for best gross.
Very occasionally, some of them play in a scramble.

It's a shame the very low players have been all but excluded from handicap comps due to a skewed h/c system, but that is where we have ended up.