WHS - current GM article

[Backache]

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.

It is more accessible for higher handicappers to play Stableford as they 'blow up' more often. Which means that medal play rounds can take forever.

 

[LincolnShep]

There are more than 100 active lady members and she's moaning because she only won once? How many didn't win at all? How many of the non-winners were higher handicappers?

 

[Backsticks]

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

That data show it is fair, and doesnt have the in built favouring of low handicappers. That was removed in two ways -
- the lifting of the 28 limit. Previously someone of playing level 32, was obliged to play off 28. That favoured everyone off 28 and below
- WHS. Which remived the sloped bias that gave more shots to low indexes relative to high.

Yes, low indexes now win less. But correctly so. They need to stop whinging about it. The grave train was derailed, thats all.

And thats quite aside from those low indexes misunderstanding handicapping completely, think that better golfer should win more. Education by the authorities of the unenlightenend to scotch the misconceptions is all that is needed here. I do think the officials here live in an ivory tower and do not get the kessage across very well. Leading to this type of promotion of nonsense, leaving even more golfers mistakenly agrieved.

 

[LincolnShep]

It's ruined golf for anyone under 15 or so h/c

Obviously you are entitled to an opinion but massive exaggerations and generalisations won't convince anyone to agree with you. Golf is not "ruined" for "anyone under 15". You may feel it's ruined for you (presumably you've given up the game as it's now ruined, do you miss it?), but it's not accurate to say that experience applies to anyone under 15.

 

[Orikoru]

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.

This was true in my experience as well, I think it widened the gap when they switched over. I saw 4 and 5 handicappers become scratch to 3, while 25 handicappers went to 28. I think personally as a mid-capper I stayed about the same.

 

[Backsticks]

This was true in my experience as well, I think it widened the gap when they switched over. I saw 4 and 5 handicappers become scratch to 3, while 25 handicappers went to 28. I think personally as a mid-capper I stayed about the same.

This was roughly as expected I think, though maybe closer to 1 or 2 shots at both ends rather than 3 or 4. Congu will have that data, and would be interesting to see it.
But it was the levelling of the field, and is a big benefit for all of WHS.

 

[Captain_Black.]

Obviously you are entitled to an opinion but massive exaggerations and generalisations won't convince anyone to agree with you. Golf is not "ruined" for "anyone under 15". You may feel it's ruined for you (presumably you've given up the game as it's now ruined, do you miss it?), but it's not accurate to say that experience applies to anyone under 15.

So I guess your 15 + then.

 

[Orikoru]

Yes, low indexes now win less. But correctly so. They need to stop whinging about it. The grave train was derailed, thats all.

I don't have a horse in this race, but statements like that are probably why low handicappers get annoyed. Why is it correct that better golfers win less? If the system was in favour of anybody - and it's probably almost impossible to create a system that isn't - shouldn't it be towards those who are actually better at golf?

 

[LincolnShep]

So I guess your 15 + then.

Why do you ask? Do you believe that everyone over 15 has exactly the same opinion? Do they all agree on everything, or is it just WHS? If I was 14.9 yesterday but 15.1 today, at what time is my opinion supposed to change? Midnight?

 

[Deleted member 29109]

So I guess your 15 + then.

Im 6.7 and WHS has not ruined golf for me in the slightest.

 

[Captain_Black.]

Why do you ask? Do you believe that everyone over 15 has exactly the same opinion? Do they all agree on everything, or is it just WHS? If I was 14.9 yesterday but 15.1 today, at what time is my opinion supposed to change? Midnight?

Thought so!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

That data show it is fair, and doesnt have the in built favouring of low handicappers. That was removed in two ways -
- the lifting of the 28 limit. Previously someone of playing level 32, was obliged to play off 28. That favoured everyone off 28 and below
- WHS. Which remived the sloped bias that gave more shots to low indexes relative to high.

Yes, low indexes now win less. But correctly so. They need to stop whinging about it. The grave train was derailed, thats all.

And thats quite aside from those low indexes misunderstanding handicapping completely, think that better golfer should win more. Education by the authorities of the unenlightenend to scotch the misconceptions is all that is needed here. I do think the officials here live in an ivory tower and do not get the kessage across very well. Leading to this type of promotion of nonsense, leaving even more golfers mistakenly agrieved.

You should have read the article, it's not "fair", it now favours the higher handicappers slightly, a reward for being bad

 

[Backsticks]

I don't have a horse in this race, but statements like that are probably why low handicappers get annoyed. Why is it correct that better golfers win less? If the system was in favour of anybody - and it's probably almost impossible to create a system that isn't - shouldn't it be towards those who are actually better at golf?

The point here is that they now win less than they used to. Previously they won too much - to an unfair amount.
So winning less now was a correction to win the CORRECT amount. Not less than high indexes, but the same. Or as close as can be.

No !!!
Its handicap golf ! Every golfer, in a fair handicap system should have the SAME chance.

Gross golf is biased towards better golfers. That is a different ball game. You cannot have your cake and eat it : play handicap golf, but also gain an unfair advantage by getting more shots than you are due compared to a high index. Its what the low men had. They are transitioning, painfully, to a more equitable system now. But making a lot of noise about it.

This second point is the one golf unions here have failed to have correctly widely undertood.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

We’ve initiated a strict monitoring of GP cards submitted. I have no idea the background to any concerns the club may have that has led to this - but I’ll conjecture that some manipulation and collusion is going on with some members a good GP and/or comp card that results in a cut in HI is followed by one or more poor GP cards..of course similar collusion around GP cards could be going on to get reductions in HI.

 

[rulefan]

I wonder how many are missing an important number?
That is the proportion of players in the field with high and low handicaps. If higher cappers outnumber the lows by 2/1, then the ratio of winners should also be 2/1.
Some years ago CONGU published stats to show that was just the situation. What it doesn't mean is that an individual high capper will win more frequently.
Since then, as pointed out above, the handicap limit has been increased dramatically from 28 and as high cappers are more likely to score significantly higher or lower than their HI than are low cappers, there will be more of them showing in the results.

 

[Backsticks]

You should have read the article, it's not "fair", it now favours the higher handicappers slightly, a reward for being bad

No, am aware of that article and data. The favouring is there, but very slight, and much less than previously existed against the high hc. The system is better. Any discrepancy is imperceptible to the golfer (most high indexed were unaware of the discrimination they suffered for decades), and does not at all warrant the type of criticism being levelled at WHS.

 

[rulefan]

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

This article suggests that it doesn't favour any particular category of player just that low cappers are not favoured as much as they were under UHS

 

[wjemather]

No longer can I (as a 1 handicap) just turn up with a built-in 3-4 hole/stroke advantage over anyone with an 18+ handicap and cruise to victory and prize-paying places without actually having to score anything like my best 90% of the time - like many low handicappers, this seems to be what the article author seems most upset about (i.e. complaining about not winning anything despite not beating her handicap by more than one stroke).
No longer does the (not-improving) higher handicapper have to post a truly exceptional score to win anything, only to find they are now handicapped out of winning anything for the next 2+ years.

These are good things; WHS has improved handicap golf by making it fairer.

 

[Orikoru]

The point here is that they now win less than they used to. Previously they won too much - to an unfair amount.
So winning less now was a correction to win the CORRECT amount. Not less than high indexes, but the same. Or as close as can be.

No !!!
Its handicap golf ! Every golfer, in a fair handicap system should have the SAME chance.

Gross golf is biased towards better golfers. That is a different ball game. You cannot have your cake and eat it : play handicap golf, but also gain an unfair advantage by getting more shots than you are due compared to a high index. Its what the low men had. They are transitioning, painfully, to a more equitable system now. But making a lot of noise about it.

This second point is the one golf unions here have failed to have correctly widely undertood.

Sorry, I thought we'd established that higher handicaps gets the advantage now and you were saying that that was correct. I stand by what I said - it's impossible to make it not biased towards somebody, so if anyone, why not the better golfers? Fair play to them, they worked hard and got good at golf. The deserve a bit of benefit of the doubt.

Clubs don't play much in the way of 'gross golf' so that's a moot point.

 

[rulefan]

Sorry, I thought we'd established that higher handicaps gets the advantage now and you were saying that that was correct. I stand by what I said - it's impossible to make it not biased towards somebody, so if anyone, why not the better golfers? Fair play to them, they worked hard and got good at golf. The deserve a bit of benefit of the doubt.

Clubs don't play much in the way of 'gross golf' so that's a moot point.

Whatever you thought we'd (?) established, my understanding of handicapping was that it was to give every on a relatively even chance in a competition.

Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning.