WHS - current GM article

[RichA]

Is golf the only sport where someone can work hard on their game and improve but have less chance of winning than someone who doesn't put in any effort?

Apparently so, according to a few on here.

So when you guys play with golfers who are better than you, how does that work? Do you punish them by taking shots as we punish you?

 

[Jimaroid]

See the analysis below carried out by Golf Monthly from data supplied by HowdidIdo.

So yes data has been made available for analysis by at least one independent organisation.

I've also carried out an analysis of my own clubs data over the last ten years. This showed that up until 2021 Cat 1 golfers had a significant advantage over other Category's with Cat 4's having barely any chance. This has changed significantly since the introduction of WHS with old Cat , 2 and 3 golfers having a marginally better chance of winning than others. I strongly suspect this is scewed by new regular golfers who tend to improve the quickest and some lower guys actively protecting their status.


Any member can do this, but too many on here prefer to listen to their bias interpretation of their experiences.

Data Reveals World Handicap System Is Levelling Playing Field

Golf Monthly has obtained data from HowDidiDo that shows the World Handicap System is working effectively to make competition fairer.

www.golfmonthly.com

There are some strange conclusions in this. The decrease in points scored looks suspicious and exactly like the omission of CR-Par.

There are other issues too. Cat 5 golfers look to have been massively incorrect at inception and shouldn’t be used to conclude 13 point difference.

Not all golfers were adjusted from Congu to WHS equally. Not all golfers even submitted 20 cards in one year, so aren’t stabilised in the sample size equally.

But yeah, blame bad conclusions on reader bias if you want.

 

[rulie]

Apparently so, according to a few on here.

I think that every player has a relatively equal chance to win. It's more likely that a high(er) handicapper will win since there are more of them playing.
Example - if you have a competition with three low cappers and 25 higher cappers, which group will the winner likely come from?

 

[Backsticks]

I am you cannot give everyone an equal chance of winning in stroke play with handicapping you can only approximate it at best. I believe the approximation should favour the better golfer.
It's a sport allbeit a handicapped sport not a lottery.

Isnt that your problem though ? You want a handicap system to be something that it does not set out to be. You have a philosophical difference with the wider golfing world (and has a more cogent argument for its position than you do for yours, in my opinion), and you want a hybrid handicapped-but-not-equally system.
Fair to say then that you dont have an issue with the implementation of WHS (essentially, it delivers what it sets out to do too well for you), but with its fundamental aim ?

 

[TheDiablo]

We’ve got 5 ‘major’ net comps a year.

This year they were won with handicaps of 1, 1, 3, 10 and 13. The middle three being 36 holes.

Our main handicap pairs match play was won by 2 guys off 4.

A guy off +2 got to the final of the individual handicap match play

Low guys seem to be doing absolutely fine at my place.

 

[clubchamp98]

Possibly because of Slope and the removal of buffer zones with the recalculation of all handicaps on the introduction of WHS.

Exactly.
My mate went down to scratch without hitting a ball.
Something he had been trying to do for years and failed.

 

[Backsticks]

Is golf the only sport where someone can work hard on their game and improve but have less chance of winning than someone who doesn't put in any effort?

This is not the case with golf.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

So when you guys play with golfers who are better than you, how does that work? Do you punish them by taking shots as we punish you?

What are the odds of a 'cat 1' golfer scoring 40+ points compared to an 18+ handicapper?

Or to look at it another way, it would be interesting to see some stats showing total number of points scored by each of the above golfers over say 10 competitions.

 

[Backsticks]

Exactly.
My mate went down to scratch without hitting a ball.
Something he had been trying to do for years and failed.

Thats correct. Essentially, compared to higher handicappers he was scratch all along, but the flaw in UHS gave him an extra shot or two to give him a biased advantage when playing handicap competitions. Surely he is happier now that his handicap is 'correct' rather than inflated.

 

[Backsticks]

What are the odds of a 'cat 1' golfer scoring 40+ points compared to an 18+ handicapper?

Is a good question, and highlights even without answering it, the mistake low HIs often make in judging their chances of winning. Comparing their chances of a particular score in points to a score in the single case of a higher handicapper. The full picture is understood by including the odds of their range of scores, and not just a single instance.

 

[clubchamp98]

Thats correct. Essentially, compared to higher handicappers he was scratch all along, but the flaw in UHS gave him an extra shot or two to give him a biased advantage when playing handicap competitions. Surely he is happier now that his handicap is 'correct' rather than inflated.

He’s delighted until he has to give 40+ shots to some carpetbagger.

 

[clubchamp98]

Is golf the only sport where someone can work hard on their game and improve but have less chance of winning than someone who doesn't put in any effort?

In essence yes.

The more you get away from the mass of high handicappers the less chance you have of winning.!

This is what the secret data that we can’t see is telling us.

 

[RichA]

What are the odds of a 'cat 1' golfer scoring 40+ points compared to an 18+ handicapper?

Or to look at it another way, it would be interesting to see some stats showing total number of points scored by each of the above golfers over say 10 competitions.

Based purely on the guys I know and results at our club this year, about 20/1 for both of them.
The exceptions seem to be the low guy who is always within a couple of shots of their HI (no chance) and the high guy who is improving (high chance, but it won't last long).

Post #114 by @yandabrown used way more data than my social group and goes furthest to answering your question so far. It shows wins rather than points, but that seems to be the main crux of peoples' complaints.

 

[Deleted member 15717]

Our society has a large cross reference of handicaps…we took stock recently and took a look at the results of our 4 biggest tournaments of the year (all held over 36 holes) and plotted out a graph for handicap vs score. Data goes back to 2020.

seems actually pretty even in the main. Larger variance as the handicap increases, as you would expect. Average score dropping as handicap increases, but not by a huge amount.

would say WHS is doing an alright job

 

[cliveb]

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.

Actually given the way that courses are rated, the easiest way to accrue a bunch of low differentials is to play long, wide open courses with no significant hazards. Lovely high CR due to the unreasonable emphasis on length.

As for the general point about the inability for low handicappers to compete, my view is that it's little to do with WHS, and far more about the decision to increase maximum handicap from 28 to 54, which of course predates WHS.

 

[Backsticks]

Our society has a large cross reference of handicaps…we took stock recently and took a look at the results of our 4 biggest tournaments of the year (all held over 36 holes) and plotted out a graph for handicap vs score. Data goes back to 2020.

seems actually pretty even in the main. Larger variance as the handicap increases, as you would expect. Average score dropping as handicap increases, but not by a huge amount.

would say WHS is doing an alright job

View attachment 50489

Sorry, but the pitchforks are being brandished and the torches are lit. Solid. Data. Is. Just. Not. Helpful.

 

[TheDiablo]

What are the odds of a 'cat 1' golfer scoring 40+ points compared to an 18+ handicapper?

Or to look at it another way, it would be interesting to see some stats showing total number of points scored by each of the above golfers over say 10 competitions.

A 0-5 handicap golfer will hit -4 net once every 150 rounds. In the teens, it is 1 in 90 and 20s it’s 1 in 40

 

[RichA]

Actually given the way that courses are rated, the easiest way to accrue a bunch of low differentials is to play long, wide open courses with no significant hazards. Lovely high CR due to the unreasonable emphasis on length.

As for the general point about the inability for low handicappers to compete, my view is that it's little to do with WHS, and far more about the decision to increase maximum handicap from 28 to 54, which of course predates WHS.

Our course lacks too many hazards but is quite long at 6600 yards. 6 par 4s are over 400 yards. Par 3s are 165 - 185.
Fairways are reasonably wide but rough is punitive.
CR is only 114 though. I was under the impression that there isn't that much emphasis on length in course rating.
Visitors tend to describe it as a punishing slog. And it's quite hilly too.

 

[Backache]

Isnt that your problem though ? You want a handicap system to be something that it does not set out to be. You have a philosophical difference with the wider golfing world (and has a more cogent argument for its position than you do for yours, in my opinion), and you want a hybrid handicapped-but-not-equally system.
Fair to say then that you dont have an issue with the implementation of WHS (essentially, it delivers what it sets out to do too well for you), but with its fundamental aim ?

To take your last point first . No I don't know if the implementation has been successful or not because I have seen no large scale data to say it has been. Largeish data such as the hdid stableford points suggest that it is likely to be biased against low handicappers which is their complaint.

Fundamentally I think handicaps are useful on a personal basis for measuring progress , provide entertainment in match play but are fundamentally unsuited to large scale stroke play events which should be subdivided so that people of approximately equal talent play each other but trying to equalise 40 handicappers against scratch players is a bit daft but if you do, give the advantage to the better golfer which is the point of all sport.

 

[D-S]

Our course lacks too many hazards but is quite long at 6600 yards. 6 par 4s are over 400 yards. Par 3s are 165 - 185.
Fairways are reasonably wide but rough is punitive.
CR is only 114 though. I was under the impression that there isn't that much emphasis on length in course rating.
Visitors tend to describe it as a punishing slog. And it's quite hilly too.

?